 |
Re: Port of Long Beach expansion-There's plenty of switching, but containers, are often pre-blcoked, or "load and go" is used.
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-10-2019 - 20:39
Higher value traffic is sorted by how the containers are loaded "pre-blocked", based upon, delivery priority, destination, and distance. The whole point of the container and well cars is to eliminate the need for "switching".
One solution to reduce the time it takes for loading traffic "pre-blocked" and reduce port congestion, is the idea of the "inland port". Under this concept of operations, you "load everything" for say a "sub set" of distant markets beyond a point "east" of "X" (say at a major mid country intermodal terminal, where you also sort traffic coming up from say Texas or Mexico), where you then"sort" everything and block it for final destinations (not by switching cars, but by "switching" containers), and re-load a new train. This is one of the reasons, why we see more of these "larger" centralized intermodal facilities.
Yeah, you want to pre-block "high value" traffic, which is often more time sensitive, whenever possible, to avoid both re-load and/or RR "switching". But,as the ports located in high land value urbanized areas, become more congested, and more important adjacent land space to sort in the ports becomes more difficult to come by, the concept of "inland ports" has become more popular. As it becomes more difficult to put in more on dock or near-dock facilities, "lower value" and not as time sensitive traffic, goes by the "load and go" strategy, to be resorted somewhere else.
For a while, I kept watch on some of the visionary local "gubmint" types in SouCal who had fantasies of "Victorville" as this mystical "inland port" (they still may???). But in reality, the economics factors for such "inland ports" tend to point to a place more like somewhere in Kansas or Texas.
For an economically viable "inland port" concept to work, you need somewhere, where it was worth "load and go:" at the port to get to with the train (rather than "re-block" and "re-load" after going a measly 100 or so miles to Victor-firckin-ville"). You also might want to locate someplace where other traffic coming up, say from Mexico, or Texas, that can also be "re-blocked" into new destination specific trains. And, you need somewhere the kind of land you need for one of these "transload" intermodal facilities is a hell of a lot cheaper, and where the local nimby's don't cost you and extra twelve years of your time whining about the "EVIL" train or the RR yard, before you can "turn dirt" to actually make it happen.
One solution to reduce the time it takes for loading traffic "pre-blocked" and reduce port congestion, is the idea of the "inland port". Under this concept of operations, you "load everything" for say a "sub set" of distant markets beyond a point "east" of "X" (say at a major mid country intermodal terminal, where you also sort traffic coming up from say Texas or Mexico), where you then"sort" everything and block it for final destinations (not by switching cars, but by "switching" containers), and re-load a new train. This is one of the reasons, why we see more of these "larger" centralized intermodal facilities.
Yeah, you want to pre-block "high value" traffic, which is often more time sensitive, whenever possible, to avoid both re-load and/or RR "switching". But,as the ports located in high land value urbanized areas, become more congested, and more important adjacent land space to sort in the ports becomes more difficult to come by, the concept of "inland ports" has become more popular. As it becomes more difficult to put in more on dock or near-dock facilities, "lower value" and not as time sensitive traffic, goes by the "load and go" strategy, to be resorted somewhere else.
For a while, I kept watch on some of the visionary local "gubmint" types in SouCal who had fantasies of "Victorville" as this mystical "inland port" (they still may???). But in reality, the economics factors for such "inland ports" tend to point to a place more like somewhere in Kansas or Texas.
For an economically viable "inland port" concept to work, you need somewhere, where it was worth "load and go:" at the port to get to with the train (rather than "re-block" and "re-load" after going a measly 100 or so miles to Victor-firckin-ville"). You also might want to locate someplace where other traffic coming up, say from Mexico, or Texas, that can also be "re-blocked" into new destination specific trains. And, you need somewhere the kind of land you need for one of these "transload" intermodal facilities is a hell of a lot cheaper, and where the local nimby's don't cost you and extra twelve years of your time whining about the "EVIL" train or the RR yard, before you can "turn dirt" to actually make it happen.
