Several routes have been running for years. More routes keep getting added. Why are PSR class I's doing that if they aren't profitable?

CSX has NJ-Syracuse, Charleston-Atl, Savannah-Atl, Jax-Atl for years. CSX has since added NJ-Montreal, Savannah-Chatsworth,GA, Charleston-Dillon.

NS same for Atl for decades. Charleston-Greer, Norfolk-Greensboro added, while Savannah-Gainesville,Ga and Mobile-Birmingham will start once construction is finished.

UP has run Houston port to Dallas for years. BNSF now does same for Houston to Fort Worth.

CN runs too many short lanes to mention. Most ramps offer service to most CN ramps, both short and long. Most prolific intermodal lane options of all the class ones.

Bob2 knows that most of the numbers he's demanding are proprietary and not available to the public.

But again, why are PSR RR's keeping and expanding into short haul intermodal if it isn't profitable?

Maybe states or ports are subsidizing the lanes. The argument would be to keep trucks off the highways. Reduce crowding and road maintenance.

But isn't that what Bob2 is arguing for? Government assistance to high speed rail because reduced car traffic LA-LV will reduce delays for trucks?

I bet it would be cheaper for the ports of LA & LB or CA to subsidize rail intermodal shuttles from San Berdo and the ports to LV. That doesn't help passenger trains, but would free up lane space on I-15 for people to more easily drive when and where they want.

I'm in favor of Brightline West and some government assistance to build and operate if necessary.



BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC says u r wrong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Charleston, SC to Inland Port Dillan, SC is
> > another example of very short haul intermodal
> > succeeding. Not just rare single commodity. Add
> to
> > the list posted last month of other lanes where
> it
> > works.
> >
> > Under 150 miles. The port schedule shows 5 days
> a
> > week each way at Dillon. 23 hours cutoff to
> > availability, so not combining days into a 2 or
> 3
> > trains a week option. It runs 5 days a week
> each
> > way. Google overhead shows 49 containers
> loaded
> > on a cut in the Dillon yard.
> >
> >
> [scspa.com]
>
> > illon/
> >
> > Dillon is the Charleston port's follow up to
> the
> > 200 miles successful Greer Inland Port.
>
> SC, may well say I'm wrong, but you have not
> proven it with this post.
>
> Show Me the Numbers.... The numbers that "matter"
> to profit or loss.
>
> Your attached "press release" from the Port has no
> data of any kind on how many folks are getting
> these containers at Dillon. Just you can do it,
> wouldn't it be "cool"... What is the number of
> containers delivered to be unloanding by rail at
> this "inland port"? This sound a lot like the
> kind of "spin" I heard from the "inland port"
> proponents in Victorville for years....
>
> As I noted there are some rare exceptions where
> this "may" "pencil out", usually involving some
> kinds of large volunes, usually to specific final
> destination site taking high volumes of traffic.
> Your attached "press release" from the Port has no
> data on how many folks are getting these
> containers at Dillon.
>
> All of the proposed "short haul or "inland ports"
> intermodal short haul cofc/tofc proposals I've
> seen and/or analyzed do not make a profit. And
> for all of the well documented operational/cost
> factors I presented.
>
> It's then that my politians (still thinking this
> is the obvious simple solution to a complex
> problem) usually ask me how much it would cost to
> "subsidiize" moving the short distance containers
> by rail.
>
> I don't need to see just the numbers you have
> annectdotally provided on the distance in miles to
> the next "short haul" terminal and/or the fact
> that it runs five days a week. That tell's me
> nothing about profit or loss on what yu assume to
> be "short distance" container hauls.
>
> I need to see numbers on how many containers were
> carried, was this destnation the final destination
> what was the average distance for these containers
> moving from port to the "final destination",
> on-average how many containers are carride per
> train are carried, cost per unit hauled, shipping
> rates, then we can see if they are making money on
> this "short haul" to "final destination"
> operation, which would get containers on trains
> from the LA to Las Vegas logistics market?
>
> Is this taken inland for switching and/or to
> assemble loads into the trains to actual final
> destinations markets (like haulers with carloads
> do to Barstow), or is this really a straight 150
> mile haul to final destinations, analogous to the
> discusion topic of "short haul" cofc/tofc to
> nearby truck served markets?
>
> So is this "example" from South Carolinas really
> an actual dedicated short container haul on rail
> cofc/tofc movement to be unloaded at Dillon South
> Carolina and deliveed to the shippers door at this
> distance? This was the situation under discussion
> in the case of a load from LA to Las Vegas in the
> I-15.
>
> Or is there a land side port constraint in
> Charleston which presents limitations in the
> volumes necessary or facitlies for creating actual
> cofc/tofc trains to final destinations, which
> likely means that these containers aren't really
> "short hauls" but rahter "long hauls" being
> carried to a distant yard, for further pick ups by
> through trains heading to final market
> destination?
>
> Finally, are these supposed "short hauls" (as
> opposed to these "short hauls" to be switched
> and/or transloaded to final destinations) or are
> the RR; making a profit on that short haul to a
> final destination at the recipeints loading dock?
>
>
> And, if this is not the case, is the RR recieving
> a significant side subsidy from a port and/or a
> "gubmint" (as would be required for this to "work"
> in Southern California for any of the proposed
> "Inland" ports Southern California I've dealt
> with)?
>
> The "myth" is that this post provides any data
> related to actual short haul cofc/tofc
> "profitability". You present no data or facts,
> that contradict my previous post, and fail to
> prove anything I said about the profitability of
> short haul cofc/tofc to final destinations was a
> "myth".
>
> So who's really peddling what to who?