Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TrafficSNAFU t1_ivhp46r wrote

Reply to comment by Blecher_onthe_Hudson in Turnpike Authority Forgot to Mention 10X Cheaper Option to Repair Turnpike Extension Bridge by jimmybot

You're welcome. The answer is sort of yes and sort of no. To borrow from a railroad forum, "The old model was to have a few warehouses but use rapid rail or air shipping to get the goods to the customer in a few days. Good for UPS, FedEx, USPS, railroads, etc. The new model is to have the goods within a day's or an hour's reach. Very bad for the rails, not good for the others."

3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivhr567 wrote

Why is it so hard? Back in the day JC was lousy with rail spurs to warehouses. And with containers those trains could be moving in and out far, far faster than the breakbulk days. If there were incentives to build on them, I'm sure there's plenty of sites in NJ with legacy rail spurs.

3

TrafficSNAFU t1_ivi0511 wrote

A. The rise of "Just in Time Logistics" which drastically reduced the need for traditional warehouses. B. Intermodal traffic "container traffic and truck trailer" has atrocious profit margins for railroads despite increased intermodal rail traffic. C. The fulfillment center shipping model does not lend itself to rail transportation quite well.
D. Effective freight rail systems aren't measured by speed but by efficiency. Railroads are excellent for bulk shipments for this reason.

3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivi3p92 wrote

>Effective freight rail systems aren't measured by speed but by efficiency.

Interesting. I'm a ship nerd not a rail nerd, and with shipping time=money because the cargo value of tens of thousands of containers is so high, and it's all financed, with interest accruing every day at sea. The biggest container ships will pay a $1m toll at the Panama Canal because it's cheaper than the time to go round the Horn. (Fun fact I learned visiting the canal!)

People often wonder why we don't revive sail cargo ships to reduce fuel consumption, and thats why. The last market for sail cargo was the Australia to Europe grain trade before WW2.

3

TrafficSNAFU t1_ivkvup0 wrote

I'm a train nerd and I find the challenges of modern railroading enthralling, if not frustrating. This quote from an article on Freightwaves sums of the situation quite well. "The basic attractiveness of carload freight is its equivalent load factor, tonnage carrying capacity, and cheaper cost per ton-mile relative to truck. A modern 60- to 70-ton boxcar, to cite one example, offers the carrying capacity of three to four truckloads. The volume advantage allows a railroad company to charge the shipper considerably less than what a shipper is charged by a truck service on a per ton-mile price quote. A rail movement might cost in the 4.5 cents per ton-mile price range versus a truck price in the 9 cents or higher range. The trade-off to the shipper, however, can often be a higher inventory carrying cost because carloads arrives a day early or a day late as much as 40% of the time. That poor carload performance makes it difficult for logisticians to schedule."

2

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivkxwjg wrote

Haha, yes I figured out you were a train nerd! Nerds unite! What never gets enough due is the fuel efficiency of rail, what I've read at 25% that of trucking. That it's only half the cost says we don't tax fuel enough.

2

TrafficSNAFU t1_ivkzo5j wrote

Or just better accounting for how much wear and tear trucks put on our roads and bridges.

2

TrafficSNAFU t1_ivlbgv9 wrote

I forgot to make a small caveat. Intermodal traffic (containers and truck trailer) which typically operate in their own unit trains and are usually under stricter time constraints than regular general traffic and bulk commodities.

2