Re: Ashland, LA&S, and Fisher Body was (erielack) Re: EL in Railfan and Railroad

["Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>]

I've been meaning to comment further on the EL Fisher Body study but I've 
been preoccupied with several wiring projects on my 1:87 RR. The problem 
with rail service from FB's standpoint was primarily lack of suitable 
equipment (ie coil cars); slow transit time was not an issue because the 
plant carried a 15 day inventory. Obviously JIT delivery had not yet become 
popular. The equipment problem sounds uncharacteristic for EL, since the 
road was more willing than some to acquire small numbers of specialized cars 
to service specific customers. I'm going to look at the proposed move as 
instructive from the perspective of equipment utilization, and how difficult 
it is to get decent utilization in short-haul moves, especially with 
conventional loose-car railroading.

Some AAR stats from that time period (early-mid 60's) help put this traffic 
in perspective. In 1965, the average freight haul was 503 miles. The average 
car moved 44 miles/day, approximately half while empty. This gives an 
abysmal 22 loaded car-miles/day (just under 1 mph), which helps explain the 
ROI of 3.69% (it was 1.73 in 1970), figures signifying an industry in 
trouble.

For the FB move from Cleveland I'll use the highway distance of approx 80 
miles, since that's what the competition used (rail via Akron or Kent was 
longer but not excessively circuitous). From a rail standpoint, this was 
very short-haul. Traffic from the two Cleveland plants amounted to about ten 
cars daily based on a 5-day week. Rail transit took 3-4 days using Cleveland 
interchange. 80 miles in 3-4 days is movement at roughly 1 mph. I'm a bit 
confused here because EL supposedly didn't have the business, so I'll assume 
they did, in fact, move a few cars. The best consistent service time for 
shifting interchange to mainline points was 28 hours. This is better, but at 
approx 3 mph, it's evident the cars spent most of their time standing still 
even while in transit.

I'm unclear as to what is included in "service time" in this case. Is it 
dock-to-dock, ie measured from the time the loaded car is released by the 
shipper to time spotted at FB, or time car arrives at FB (which may have 
been many hours prior to spotting since switching the outbound parts was 
higher priority)? The other question is how long did the coil cars spend at 
Harding before heading back to Cleveland? Back then, the customer had two 
free days (not including weekends and holidays) after day of arrival before 
demurrage began. If the cars were handled expeditiously due to the plant 
being switched 4x daily, they may have spent 2 days at Harding. Assuming a 
similar transit time back to Cleveland, and a 48 hr turnaround there as 
well, the mainline interchange arrangement would have seen the equipment 
make a round trip in 8 days (no switching at FB on W/E's). This is 10 loaded 
car-miles/day, and at 50 carloads/week it would take 65-70 cars (including 
some extras to cover for cars taken out of service for maintenance and 
repairs) to protect the traffic. Assuming 5% interest, the capital cost on a 
$31,000 car is $4.25/day or $34 in 8 days. I wonder what the rate was on 50 
tons of coil steel Cleveland-Harding back then?

The trial didn't include the "unit train" discussed in the report, but here 
the potential for improvement in utilization is the greatest. It wouldn't 
have been a true unit train since the consist would almost certainly have 
been broken up at one or both ends for switching, so "dedicated" train is 
more accurate. This train would have operated more like a truck. Transit 
time of 6 hours is reasonable considering interchange and the runaround at 
SN. If the cars were loaded and unloaded on a priority basis, say, 6 hours, 
you could get a round trip in 24 hours, require only a dozen or so cars to 
protect the traffic, and make them work harder at 80 loaded car-miles/day. 
Certainly not heroic, but a vast improvement over conventional handling. For 
18 hours at each end, you'd still get 3 round trips/week with a 17 car train 
and about 20 to protect the traffic, reducing your equipment cost by 70%.

By comparison, a TTX flat shuttling back and forth Croxton-Chicago on EL 
would make 1.5 round-trips, loaded in both directions, for a performance of 
416 loaded car-miles/day.

Paul B


- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Twarogowski" <stwarogowski_@_windstream.net>
To: "EL Mail List" <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>; "Keith Robbins" 
<KRinMich_@_aol.com>; "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb@bellsouth.net>; "Michael 
Connor" <mjconnor_rr_@_hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Ashland, LA&S, and Fisher Body was (erielack) Re: EL in Railfan 
and Railroad


> Some detail on the Fisher Body inbound steel study:  FB was receiving 
> steel via rail from the EL direct in Youngstown and through Youngstown 
> connections with the PLE.  The study looked at how the EL could capture 
> the over the road traffic from Cleveland.  Republic and J&L were providing 
> coiled steel to FB moving down I-71.  60% of the steel (384,000 net tons 
> consumed a year) moved from Cleveland or Youngstown with Cleveland 
> providing 40% of the total tonnage.  It was estimated if it all moved by 
> rail this would amount to 6,400 carloads per year based on a 48-week 
> production year, or 133 cars per week.  FB was receiving steel from Armco 
> in Middletown, OH (3%); Empire Steel from right in Mansfield (3.8%); Great 
> Lakes (6.8%) and McClouth (11.3%) in Trenton MI; Weirton Steel in Weirton, 
> WV (1.5%); Wheeling Steel in Steubenville, OH (3.8%) US Steel in Irvin, PA 
> (3%): Pitt Steel in Pittsburgh (6.8%); Republic in Warren, OH (3.8%); 
> Youngstown Sheet and Tube in Youngstown (16.5%); J&L in Cleveland (19.5%) 
> and Republic in Cleveland (20.3%).  The actual handlings for 1963 showed 
> the EL moving 1,949 carloads into FB; about 30.5% of the total.  Highway 
> time was 3-4 hours, rail amounted to 3-4 days.  The delay was due to the 
> interchange at Cleveland. Republic's output moved via the River Terminal 
> then to the B&O or NKP then to the EL in interchange switch.  Output from 
> J&L moved from the Cuyahoga Valley then to the B&O or NKP then to the EL. 
> This EL study was done to determine if the traffic would be better served 
> if moved to a mainline junction instead of being interchanged in the 
> Cleveland terminal.  One route was NKP-Kent-EL then to Fisher Body.  The 
> B&O route was B&O-Akron-EL then to Fisher Body.  The NKP-Kent route 
> provided a 28 hour service while the the B&O-Akron route was erratic and 
> ranged from 24 to 48 hours.  During the study a few cars from each 
> junction were mishandled and wound up in Marion and the service time 
> because of that misrouting was 96 hours.  Routing via NKP-Kent saw the EL 
> realize 61%-39% revenue split with the NKP; the B&O-Akron split was 
> 57%-43% in favor of the EL.  The possibility of  running an EL-direct unit 
> train of coiled steel was also discussed (that would have been something 
> to see, especially at Leavittsburg when the power would have to switch 
> ends).  The report also notes that by using NKP and BO as originating 
> carriers, there was a greater chance of insuring proper equipment was on 
> hand for the movement.
>
> Later in the report an interview with Fisher Body's traffic manager is 
> summarized.  He stated that this was the first time the EL was actively 
> pursuing this traffic out of Cleveland and indicated a lack of suitable 
> equipment may have been the reason for ignoring it in the past.  It 
> appears the analyst writing the report concurred with that opinion.  The 
> traffic manager also complained about the wooden skids used for bracing 
> the coils in gondolas.  He stated that splinters often became embedded in 
> the coils and caused indentations in the finished stampings.  This was an 
> issue with the steel mills and was not discussed further.  He offered no 
> objections to the EL handling the traffic as long as they could furnish 
> the proper equipment. They carry a 15 day inventory so fast service was 
> not an issue.  Pitt Steel would occasionally request to move via truck 
> because the PRR did not have proper equipment on hand for loading.  This 
> traffic moved PRR-Youngstown-EL when by rail.
>
> The EL maintained round the clock crews at Harding Yard to switch Fisher 
> Body.  Switching was set up as needed but was generally done at 1100, 
> 1530, 2000 and 0001.  Spotting loads of steel was determined by what loads 
> needed to be pulled.  "Under no circumstances will any inbound cars be 
> switched that would interfere with the switching of outbound auto parts."
>
> At the end of the report are some handwritten notes.  The scribble is hard 
> to decipher but it looks like someone made contact with other roads about 
> pooling cars for a unit train.  Also in the margin are prices of what can 
> be assumed to be coil cars - Thrall $32-34,000; Greenville $31,533; PS 
> $30,245.
>
> As the report was done as a study of "what if" there is nothing further 
> regarding what decision was made.  The only other data I have regarding 
> Fisher Body in Ontario OH is from 1982, nearly 20 years after this study. 
> Conrail moved 10,153 loads of autoparts out of Fisher Body but only 648 
> loads of steel in.  And GM announced this plant is to be closed in June 
> 2010.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Paul Brezicki" <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net>
> To: "EL Mailing List" <erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>; "Stephen Twarogowski"
> <stwarogowski_@_windstream.net>; "Keith Robbins" <KRinMich@aol.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 6:58 AM
> Subject: (erielack) Re: EL in Railfan and Railroad
>
>
>> Thanks, Steve, I figured you'd chime in at some point. That's quite an
>> Ashland Turn, 99 cars. Considering the FB-4 consist, it appears that
>> roughly half the Turn was Hardings. Interesting also that the train was
>> essentially empty parts cars. IIRC, the inbound materials for Fisher Body
>> were trucked in from foundries nearby at Lordstown and Cleveland. I 
>> recall
>> a study you sent me a while back, conducted by EL in the mid-60's,
>> considering the potential for diversion of FB traffic from Cleveland 
>> being
>> diverted to rail. It concluded that rail service was too slow and
>> unreliable over such a short haul, not to mention the poor equipment
>> utilization. One wonders if a dedicated short, reduced crew,
>> interdivisional train similar in concept to Reading's "Bee-Line Service"
>> might have succeeded here.
>>
>> There were quite a few customers at Ashland. It appears that activity on
>> the Kent Sub was concentrated in two portions, between Harding and 
>> Ashland
>> (including Mansfield), then further east between Creston (W&LE
>> interchange) and Kent, and few customers in the roughly 20 miles between
>> Ashland and Creston. So a turn terminating at Ashland makes sense to me
>> now.
>>
>> According to my SPV atlas, the LA&S (Lorain, Ashland & Southern) was a 
>> PRR
>> affiliate, and evidently was abandoned long before the EL years. So I
>> presume Erie picked up some LA&S trackage and customers in the Ashland
>> area when this occurred.
>>
>> Paul B
>>
>>
>> From: "Stephen Twarogowski" <stwarogowski_@_windstream.net>
>> Subject: (erielack) Re: EL in Railfan and Railroad
>>
>> Industry in Ashland included the following (from the Central Territory
>> firms list):
>>
>>      Ashland City Farm Bureau Ashland OH EL Grain
>>      Ashland Equity Exchange Ashland OH EL Grain
>>      Budd Co. Ashland OH EL Railcars
>>      Eagle Rubber CO. Ashland OH EL Rubber Goods
>>      F.E. Myers Ashland OH EL Pumps and Sprayers
>>      Faultless Rubber Co. Ashland OH EL Rubber Goods
>>      Garber Publishing Ashland OH EL Printers
>>      General Latex & Chemical Ashland OH EL Liquid Latex
>>      Hess and Clark Ashland OH EL Animal Feed
>>      National Latex Products Ashland OH EL Rubber Goods
>>      U Brand Co. Ashland OH EL Pipe Fittings
>>
>>
>> Picking a Sunday out of my January 1972 Marion Trainsheets it shows the
>> Ashland Turn on Sunday, Jan 16, 1972 as being ordered at 1700 and
>> departing Marion at 1900.  10 loads, 89 empties with RS3's 1005, 1037,
>> 1026, 1008, 1021.  The 1026 and 1008 were left at Harding; 1037 was left
>> at Mansfield; the 1005 was left at Ashland.  The following day FB-4 was
>> ordered at 1600 and departed Marion at 2100 with C424 2406 and 1 load, 52
>> empties.  It arrived OD at 2245.  FB-5 made the return trip departing OD
>> at 0035 with 43 loads and 8 empties; 29/8 for Marion, 14/0 for the C&O.
>> Looking at a few days worth of FB-4/FB-5 it looks like C209 was its
>> assigned caboose. Conductor McAdow and engineer Schmitt.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> From: krinmich_@_aol.com
>> Subject: (erielack) Re: EL in Railfan and Railroad
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> The last crew at Harding was done on Saturday morning.? Sometime on
>> Friday/Saturday whatever westbound with a divisional crew that came along
>> and could work without delaying anybody would gather up the engines.?
>> Could be MC-3, 93, 95, 89, 61 whatever - any Marion hump train.? Might 
>> not
>> be the same train for all the engines because there was a timetable limit
>> on how many engines you could have together.? Ashland had a lot of little
>> places.? There was some kind of foundry and a lot of stuff along the old
>> LA&S south.? Biggest place was probably Eagle Rubber (I think that's the
>> name).? They did a lot of business but no tonnage because it was a lot of
>> rubber toy products.? Eagle Rubber still was using a lot of the old 40 ft
>> box cars just because of?their product with low tonnage.? I nerver worked
>> as an agent there so I couldn't tell you all the places.? Ashland was the
>> end of the turn because we had to get the serviced engine back there in
>> time for Monday morning.? There wouldn't!
>>  be anything to pick up coming back unless for some reason the Marions
>> from Friday had gotten missed at Ashland or Mansfield or maybe there was
>> still a WB of all Marions still sitting at Martel WB siding that had been
>> set off because Yard C was filled up.? You couldn't pick up anything off
>> the PRR at Mansfield because that would be a yard move and I don't really
>> think it would be a wise idea to have rord power going into the 
>> sidetracks
>> at Mansfield to pick up.? If there was anything, there wouldn't be anyone
>> there to tell us it was ready.? Anything that got picked up on Sunday
>> night was because it had not been picked up since?it was ready on Friday
>> or the aforementioned Marions not moved because Yard C was full.? Usually
>> by Sunday night we had cleaned up what we had set off on Wednesday 
>> through
>> Friday that?had been?held out of Marion WB Yard.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>>
>>
>> The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
>> http://EL-List.railfan.net/
>> To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html
>>
> 


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	http://EL-List.railfan.net/
	To Unsubscribe: http://Lists.Railfan.net/erielackunsub.html

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

End of EL Mail List Digest V3 #3150
***********************************