Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivh8c35 wrote

Reply to comment by Positive_Debate7048 in Turnpike Authority Forgot to Mention 10X Cheaper Option to Repair Turnpike Extension Bridge by jimmybot

I'd be surprised if 'multiple trains per day' is anywhere near capacity, but I really don't know how to find out. I recently read that only 25% of long haul cargo in the US goes by rail, which seems scandalously low. The average ship has 15k containers, that's a lot of fucking trucks burning diesel needed if it doesn't move out by rail!!!

One of my favorite factoids: The PA was created a century ago to build a rail crossing over the lower Hudson or the Harbor. They built a huge empire of ports and vehicular bridges, but never accomplished their original mission!

4

TrafficSNAFU t1_ivhf7oa wrote

Even if the % of tonnage hauled is low compared to trucks it doesn't mean they aren't congestion issues in our local area and across the network. Clearance limits and operational fluidity are big concerns. The primary freight main lines in lower Hudson County are the Passaic & Harsimus Branch which is double tracked and runs via Newark Ironbound into South Kearny before entering JC in the Marion section of town. The other line is the National Docks Secondary. Coming out of Oak Island Yard in Newark, the line crosses Newark Bay on a double tracked bridge, after passing the turnout for Port Jersey and the NYNJ Railroad car float yard, the line condenses to a single track. There is passing siding between Linden Avenue and the HBLR yard. Afterwards the line condenses onto a single track viaduct before entering a tunnel under the PATH yard. The line remains singled track as enters Long Dock tunnel before meeting the P&H in the Marion Section of town. Up until 2010, one of the big issues that hampered this line's usefulness to dispatchers and operational planners were height restrictions on the rail cars that could operate on the line. Redundant overheard bridges were removed, and tunnel clearances were improved. Another issue is that many modern warehouse facilities aren't suited to being rail served. Additionally, in an ideal world, freight and passenger rail operation would be segregated.

6

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_ivhn5kb wrote

Fantastic answer! Thanks!

<Another issue is that many modern warehouse facilities aren't suited to being rail served.

Surely this is a choice that can be changed with the proper incentives, not a natural logistical feature. Before the Interstates all factories and warehouses were rail served. We let Detroit destroy that infrastructure.

I get sick every time I drive the Cross Bronx and it's so back to back trucks it looks like train, except they're stopped dead burning diesel for hours. We can do better.

3

TrafficSNAFU t1_ivhp46r wrote

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

Nexis4Jersey t1_ivhfhvo wrote

Watch this video to understand reason why so few freight goes by rail.

2

TrafficSNAFU t1_ivi3d4m wrote

The problem with this video I have is that it ignores certain realities about the limitations of railroads as mode of transportation. That is not to say that the issues he brings up are not accurate, its just that it doesn't account for changing realities in the logistics sphere since the 1960s. Changes in industrial/production philosophies, containerization, rise of the interstate highway system, the brokenness of the e-commerce model, etc. These realities exist whether you nationalize or the major railroads completely change their mindset overnight. There needs to be a broad change in US Transportation policy, where the costs of the damages put on our road network by trucks are adequately accounted for. To nationalize without addressing this basic issue is futile. Even if this issue is rectified there are still issues inherent to freight rail transportation you'd struggle to solve.

5