Re: (erielack) M&E/Rahway Valley News

["Schuyler G Larrabee" <sgl2_@_ix.netcom.com>]

Bill, it's not the expense of creating a "filet" yard, which as you note
might be comparatively nominal.  It's the labor expense >forever< along with
the cost of delay.  Remember the truckers don't have to f*** around with
this kind of operation, and they can drive that container directly to where
it needs to go, and faster than you can get there on rails.

SGL
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill K." <pontiac_@_dreamscape.com>
To: <erielack_@_railfan.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: (erielack) M&E/Rahway Valley News


> Actually the original Dewitt intermodal terminal was outside the yard, on
> the end of an industrial lead that fed into a remnant of the original
> passenger mainline through the streets of Syracuse.   For a long time jobs
> would have a main track tied up with a fleet signal so they could work the
> terminal.  The loader was small, like a large rubber-tire payloader but
with
> a lift that could grab the container tops instead.  The space was once an
> engine terminal, part of the coal dock remains and some other structures
> were built so loading room was fairly tight.
>
> They did eventually move it to a larger space in the yard's hump lead and
> inbound receiving tracks, with a large overhead crane... but they also
were
> doing a lot of local work and had trains that originated and terminated
> here.
>
> To duplicate that operation I would think would be cheap if you had the
> land, an empty yard like Bevier Street on the D&H would work - just
dedicate
> a track, pave around it, and get a loader in there.   The old Dewitt
> facility wasn't and isn't even fenced in.  You could probably even work it
> into a space along the DL&W main somewhere, if it was wide enough for say
6
> tracks somewhere for a hundred yards or so.   Handle some local traffic
with
> it and probably could get funds to help pay for it to boot.  A train
headed
> through the filet could pick up enough empty cars somewhere to split it
out,
> and pull through getting the tops picked off, then loaded in the empties.
> Put a fresh crew on and send it on it's way -
>
>
> Bill K.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Jedalberg_@_aol.com>
> To: <gkazin_@_yahoo.com>; <Fish_76@webtv.net>; <erielack@railfan.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:56 PM
> Subject: Re: (erielack) M&E/Rahway Valley News
>
>
> > Another aspect of "de-stacking" the double stacked containers is that
you
> > have effectively doubled the length of train. Notwithstanding the
capital
> > expense of building a "fillet" terminal reasonably close to the east
coast
> so
> > that you continue to get the benefit of double stacking, plus the cost
of
> the
> > lift equipment and additional railcars.And don't forget time. DS doesn't
> get
> > you two for one cost-wise, but it is a lot better than the one for one
of
> > single stack or conventional 89' equipment. Conrail did the fillet for
> (APL)
> > Boston bound traffic at a special terminal in Syracuse.
> > Remember also that double stack cars are considerably wider at the
bottom,
> as
> > well, and if talking about domestic boxes, 20'6" ATR for clearance. Most
> > international boxes are still 8'6"(primarily because of clearances
> overseas),
> > so if you can afford the inconvenience of hi-lo loading, you can get
away
> > with less clearance height.(As a point of interest the Bergen tunnel at
> the
> > east end is only good for hi-lo loading, as is the Waldo tunnel under
> PATH.
> > We hit the tunnel with a container there and turned it into a sort of
> > parallelogram.The Weehawken line had a restriction at the DL&W overpass,
> > which is why the Northern line was cleared We hit it with a
containerabout
> > 17-18 years ago. Container was loaded with cloth bales and splayed out
to
> the
> > sides. Pulled the train back into Croxton, where the BUOI eased by
> whacking
> > the sides of the container. Bet that was some expensive cloth!
> > Jim
> >
>

------------------------------