 |
Re: Rail most efficient, not no 2 continuing earlier thread.
Author: Dave Smith
Date: 12-14-2007 - 17:46
Bruce,
Obviously there are limiting factors to shipping ISO containers by barge. One is the simple fact that we have basically two inland waterway systems in the US, Columbia/Snake and Mississippi. That's a fairly small cross section of the country, so obviously the rest of the nation is served by either truck or rail. Also, the Port of Portland is limited in the number of container lines compared to either Seattle/Tacoma or LA/LB, and Portland will always be limited in the size of ships it can serve, so even riverside intermodal terminals like Lewiston or Pasco need some type of service to the Puget Sound ports to be effective, and that means either rail or truck.
The nuance of shipping containers by rail to PNW ports from PNW inland terminals is that they almost always have to be in unit train consists to give reasonable shipper satisfaction. If a few sets of double stack well cars are moved via mixed freights, the railroad either has to hump them for reclassification (something most well cars are not made for) or they must arrange for the yard crew to set out the double stacks via flat yard shifting. The former can cause more product damage, the latter is an added cost to the railroad, and the railroads generally shy away from special service requirements.
The Port of Lewiston used to ship a few 5-packs of containers to Seattle via BN/BNSF, but there were too many complaints about product damage due to humping in Pasco, and BNSF wasn't willing to take the extra precautions necessary to placate the shipper's concerns. Since then, any export freight bound from Lewiston to Puget Sound has either moved by truck or by boxcar, then restuffed into ISO containers there.
And since you mentioned it, it is true that more and more export grain bound for Asia is moving by container rather than bulk. The same cost differental you mentioned for the shipping lines is also true for the barge lines - it's cheaper per ton to ship by container rate than by bulk rate.
The big problem for both the Inland Northwest and the Northern Plains grain growers is that the railroads have retrenched there intermodal offerings right at a time when more grain growers need intermodal service. BNSF used to offer container rates out of Shelby MT, then shut that down, even though they run more grain shuttles. It's ironic that over the years, there used to be a lot of grain trucks coming out of Montana to Lewiston, then shuttle rates came into effect and the grain truck traffic dried up. Now we're seeing growth in containerized grain out of Montana moving by truck to the Port of Lewiston. I would think BNSF's marketing guys would catch on to this trend and reopen container service out of more parts of Montana. Ditto for Eastern Washington.
Obviously there are limiting factors to shipping ISO containers by barge. One is the simple fact that we have basically two inland waterway systems in the US, Columbia/Snake and Mississippi. That's a fairly small cross section of the country, so obviously the rest of the nation is served by either truck or rail. Also, the Port of Portland is limited in the number of container lines compared to either Seattle/Tacoma or LA/LB, and Portland will always be limited in the size of ships it can serve, so even riverside intermodal terminals like Lewiston or Pasco need some type of service to the Puget Sound ports to be effective, and that means either rail or truck.
The nuance of shipping containers by rail to PNW ports from PNW inland terminals is that they almost always have to be in unit train consists to give reasonable shipper satisfaction. If a few sets of double stack well cars are moved via mixed freights, the railroad either has to hump them for reclassification (something most well cars are not made for) or they must arrange for the yard crew to set out the double stacks via flat yard shifting. The former can cause more product damage, the latter is an added cost to the railroad, and the railroads generally shy away from special service requirements.
The Port of Lewiston used to ship a few 5-packs of containers to Seattle via BN/BNSF, but there were too many complaints about product damage due to humping in Pasco, and BNSF wasn't willing to take the extra precautions necessary to placate the shipper's concerns. Since then, any export freight bound from Lewiston to Puget Sound has either moved by truck or by boxcar, then restuffed into ISO containers there.
And since you mentioned it, it is true that more and more export grain bound for Asia is moving by container rather than bulk. The same cost differental you mentioned for the shipping lines is also true for the barge lines - it's cheaper per ton to ship by container rate than by bulk rate.
The big problem for both the Inland Northwest and the Northern Plains grain growers is that the railroads have retrenched there intermodal offerings right at a time when more grain growers need intermodal service. BNSF used to offer container rates out of Shelby MT, then shut that down, even though they run more grain shuttles. It's ironic that over the years, there used to be a lot of grain trucks coming out of Montana to Lewiston, then shuttle rates came into effect and the grain truck traffic dried up. Now we're seeing growth in containerized grain out of Montana moving by truck to the Port of Lewiston. I would think BNSF's marketing guys would catch on to this trend and reopen container service out of more parts of Montana. Ditto for Eastern Washington.
