View non-flash version
Steamship Corporation, was created by John B. Waterman and his two associates, W.D. Bellingrath and C.W. Hempstead, in 1919. That same year, Niels F. Johnsen, founder of ISH, immigrated to the United States and became a U.S. citizen in 1927. In 1947, he founded Central Gulf in New Orleans with his sons, Niels W. and Erik F. Johnsen. Over the next two decades, the company grew and expanded its eet and services. In 1969, ACADIA FOREST , the world?s first LASH (lighter aboard ship) vessel, was delivered from the shipyard. e vessel was engineered to be part of the LASH system, which o ered an innovative solution to port congestion and delays at ports of the time. The company grew its LASH fleet to 15 vessels and more than 2,000 LASH barges. In 1978, the holding company ISH was formed. In 1989, ISH acquired Waterman Steamship Corporation and other subsidiaries, Central Gulf and Forest Lines, to become a leader in operating barge-carrying vessels. e inspiration behind CG Railways actu- ally began with the idea of the LASH concept. According to Wild, ?We quickly realized that the LASH concept would not work with the limited inland access to Mexico. However, a rail ferry service would allow the streamline access to Mexico and the United States that we were looking to accomplish.? In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005, the company relocated to Mobile in 2006. Coming full circle from one of its subsidiaries, Waterman Steamship Corporation, ISH is now located in the RSA Battle House Tower in downtown Mobile. CG Railway began its double-deck rail-ferry ships out of the Port of Mobile in 2007 to accom-modate its growing market with access to the Alabama State Port Authority?s Class I railroads. Despite its maritime history, it is important to note that CG Railway is a railroad service. ?We want to make sure that people under- stand we are a short-sea solution,? states Wild. ?We are a rail operation simply using maritime assets as a conveyance to move rail.? Similar to its holding company?s long and evolving maritime history, the company con- tinues to grow and improve its rail ferry service. ?We have experienced double-digit growth from 2007 to today,? says Nahas. ?Many of our original customers have grown along with the growth of our service. e majority of our cus- tomers have been with us since we started our service in 2001, and we are extremely proud of our long-standing, strong relationships.? In fact, the double-decker rail ferries were added to CG Railway to accommodate the growing need of the market. ? ere are just not that many options to move freight to and from southern Mexico, and CG Railway o ers that alternative to traditional modes of transport,? explains Nahas. ?As a result, we expanded our capacity along with our cus- tomers? growth into new markets.? e company looks to add refrigerated capabilities and a specialized fleet of rail cars equipped with refrigeration units and the newest satellite technology o ering 24/7 remote monitoring of time, location, tem- perature, and other important supervision features to its service roster. Expanding relationships CG Railway has maximized on its relation- ships in bringing to its clients the rail logistics services. e long-standing relationships have created the rail ferry service that o ers a com-petitive solution to businesses in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. ?Much of our success is dependent on the support from the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican railroads,? says Wild. e company?s relation- ships must come together across all channels to accomplish this rail ferry service. ?Our rail logistics are dependent on every aspect of the service working together in order to provide the quick and e cient rail intermo- dal solution our clients have come to expect,? says Wild. ?The key is through our years of operations, we have built these long-term rela- tionships within the railroads, the ports that we operate and the government agencies. ose relationships don?t come overnight.? MTNiki Lim is a graduate of Wake Forest University with a bachelor?s degree in communication, and is a six-year public relations veteran. America?s Marine Highways BY MATTHEW TEDESCO To learn more about America?s marine highways, check out the following Web sites: http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhi_home.htm http://www.marad.dot.gov/ships_shipping_landing_page/mhi_home/mhi_reference_ library/MHP_Reference_Library.htm http://www.marinehighways.org/ http://www.ccdott.org/projresult/prjrslmhss.shtml SNAME?s Maritime Economics Panel (O-36) de nes marine highways, previously referred to as short sea shipping, as follows: ?Freight service operations carrying either containerized or trai- lerized cargoes (or empties) via the coastal waters and river systems of North and Central America, having at least one port of call in the United States, and in particular those services where there is a true ?intermodal choice? to be made by the shipper between moving units by water and using one or more land-based alternatives (i.e. highway and/or rail).? The discriminating factor is the notion of ?true intermodal choice,? implying that America?s marine highways (AMH) in its purest form refers to marine services that do not already exist as a result of geographic advantages, but instead to new marine services that o er an alternative to established modes (i.e. truck and rail). These services may move pure domestic freight (either as trailers or intermodal containers), or they may be container feeder services seeking to mitigate congestion at a major port by diverting a portion of inbound and outbound freight from truck to ships or barges. It is anticipated that AMH would result in local or national bene ts, referred to as exter- nalities, including reduced costs associated with: highway congestion; highway infrastructure maintenance and expansion; safety; noise (re ected in property values); and pollution/health. The Marine Highways Cooperative has developed a bene ts calculator to assist in quantifying these externalities compared to other modes. In most routes, estimated required freight rates for AMH exceed prevailing market rates for either truck or rail. Fuel costs represent a substantial percentage of the operating costs for these vessels, contributing on the order of 20 to 35% to the required freight rate depending on route and speed with traditional fuels. As the content in the October 2011 issue of (mt) showed, lique ed natural gas o ers the opportunity to reduce fuel costs. In addition, the harbor maintenance tax (HMT) rep- resents 5 to 7% of the cost to the shipper. Improvements in fuel economy and government policy decisions, such as elimination of HMT for AMH, may help bridge the economic gap. Further e orts will be required to reduce terminal and landside costs associated with AMH. MTMatthew Tedesco is a member of the SNAME (mt) editorial board and vice chair of the SNAME Maritime Economics Panel O-36 (Paci c). 50_53_LimCGRailwayfeature_SNAME_Jan12_P3.indd 5312/22/11 3:43 PM