Trailer-on-Flatcar (TOFC) A.K.A “Piggybacking”
1. Definition
Trailer-on-flatcar is the intermodal practice of loading an over the road trailer onto a specialized railway flatcar for transportation.
From source 1: www.independentdispatch.com
2. Broader Explaination
Trailer-on-flatcar is the most basic form of intermodal transportation, so basic that it sometimes is referred to as simply intermodal. TOFC is advantageous because it combines the flexibility and door to door capabilities of a motor carrier with the long-distance transportation economies of scale that the railway can provide because of its high efficiency(2).
3. Historic Development
Attempts at piggybacking date back to the mid-19th century; the army and circus were some of the first users, often using tractors and special ramps to get the wagons or trailers on the flatcars(3). However it was pioneered by several railroad companies in the 1950’s and along with its increasing popularity came the utilization of specialized forklifts and cranes for loading/unloading, greatly increasing efficiency. The deregulation of the U.S. transportation industry in the 1980’s greatly increased piggybacking as well, because companies were no longer prohibited from cross-modal ownership.
4. Analysis
The largest advantage and disadvantage of the TOFC method are one in the same, cost. The change over between truck and rail takes time and costs money. Yet, one cannot forget about the long-distance cost savings provided by the efficiency of the railway. These two concepts are basically competing with one another and seem to have found an equilibrium that finds the utilization of TOFC only advantageous over long distance hauls (>500-750 miles). Because only 22% of all truck hauls are a distance of over 500 miles(4), TOFC has only been effective for a small segment of the overall industry. This is not to say that that equilibrium is static; there are lesser obvious factors that are becoming increasingly relevant in today’s transportation environment.
From source 4: U30: Evaluation of Freight Vehicles in Short-Haul Intermodal Lanes
As congestion becomes an increasing problem, TOFC helps to lessen the amount of traffic on the roadways. Less congestion on the roadways leads to less traffic delays caused by large truck accidents that create time consuming cleanups. Therefore TOFC also leads to a higher level of driver safety, less wasted fuel, and better air quality.
There are also less apparent disadvantages to consider. An inherent negative of TOFC is that the wheels create a gap between the trailer and flatcar, creating added height and sometimes clearance issues. Trucks must adhere to roadway weight restrictions and truck trailers are taller and longer than a standard boxcar. These two factors create an extension of the train’s convoy and a less dense, efficient way of transporting goods. Another disadvantage is that TOFC neutralizes a large advantage of motor carriers, speed. By putting a trailer on a train, the load then travels at the slower rate of a train. Lastly, because of the additional factors and hand-offs, TOFC demands a higher level of coordination to get goods from point A to point B without unexpected delays.
5. Industry
In the past, multiple bills of lading had provided complication and headaches, recently however, the problems have been eased because of EDI; with the instant transmission of data, it is now common practice to have one bill of lading, simplifying all intermodal transportation methods.
The average height of a boxcar is somewhere from 12’ to 14’, yet because of the wasted space created by a trailer’s wheels; the height of a flatcar with a trailer on it averages 17’(5). This added height poses additional bridge and tunnel clearance issues. Clearance is not generally a huge problem in North America, however in other areas such as Europe, this additional height commonly creates large problems; making TOFC not as attractive, and sometimes impossible.
As the transportation industry trends toward utilizing motor carriers at a much faster rate than rail(6), the aforementioned coordination issues related to intermodal transportation are realized in the issues of trying to line-up back hauls. It will become more and more difficult to coordinate a back-haul shipment for rail than for motor carriers due to inherent nature of each mode.
From source 6: www.bts.gov
As certain trends of economic factors continue (increasing gas prices, truck driver shortages, congestion, environmental concerns, etc.); TOFC’s benefit equilibrium may trend downward in favor of shorter distances than the status quo (which are dominated by all-truck routes), creating an exponential increase in TOFC’s benefit
Team: FS12_24 (11/18/2012)
References
1. Independent Dispatch | Intermodal Services Equipment. Digital image. Independent Dispatch | Intermodal Services Equipment. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://www.independentdispatch.com/services/intermodal/equipment.shtml>.”Trailer-on-flatcar.”
2. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/602019/trailer-on-flatcar>.
3. Kunkle, Ryan. “Modeling TOFC (Trailer on Flatcar) Trains.” About.com Model Railroad Trains. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://modeltrains.about.com/od/railroads/a/Tofc-Trailer-On-Flatcar-History.htm>.
4. Burton, Mark, Dr. U30: Evaluation of Freight Vehicles in Short-Haul Intermodal Lanes. Rep. no. U30. N.p.: n.p., n.d. U30: Evaluation of Freight Vehicles in Short-Haul Intermodal Lanes. National Transportation Research Center, Incorporated University Transportation Center under a Grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology, Dec. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/44000/44200/44239/U30-Evaluation_of_Freight_Vehicles_in_Short-Haul_Imtermodal_Lanes__FINAL_.pdf>.
5. “Piggyback and Doublestack Train Cars.” Piggyback and Doublestack Train Cars. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/pbdblstk.html>.
6. BTS | Figure 3 – Modal Shares of U.S. Commercial Freight Shipments ByValue, Weight, and Ton-Miles: 1993, 1997, and 2002*. Digital image. BTS | Figure 3 – Modal Shares of U.S. Commercial Freight Shipments ByValue, Weight, and Ton-Miles: 1993, 1997, and 2002*. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <http://www.bts.gov/publications/freight_shipments_in_america/html/figure_03.html>.
Team: FS12_24 (11/18/2012)
SCM wiki 