LEADING

THE WAY

LEADING

THE WAY

Through Innovative Temperature Control Intermodal Solutions

With a growing temperature control container fleet, we have the capacity to provide reliable intermodal service across the world's premium freight network. We are proud to be among the top 25 refrigerated service providers in the nation and we are committed to providing time definite intermodal service. When you choose Tiger Cool Express, you will discover that we are small enough to care and large enough to deliver the value and capacity you expect and deserve.

Why Choose
Tiger Cool Express

The variability of market capacity throughout the course of the year increases overall costs as shippers are forced to look outside their normal providers. Our growing container count offers year round peace of mind with the capacity you expect and deserve.

An Intermodal train can haul the equivalent of approximately 280 truckloads of freight with each ton traveling an average of 473 miles on one gallon of fuel. The relative energy efficiency of rail is estimated at 1.5 to five times that of trucking. 

As an intermodal service provider, we are capable of picking up and delivering freight on time as promised.  Our commitment is to partner with professional draymen and to utilize the Class 1 railroads in order to meet your service expectations every day.

When you choose Tiger Cool Express you will discover that we are small enough to care and large enough to deliver the value and service you expect and deserve. Our Customer Service team is staffed to provide our customers with a single point of contact who you can always rely on.

By converting from truckload to Tiger Cool’s Intermodal Temperature Control service, you will experience cost savings throughout the year. Choosing to move your freight via the rail not only improves your cost in fuel but also improves your carbon footprint while impacting your environmental sustainability efforts

Our state-of-the-art, container visibility technology includes telematics to monitor location, direction, and speed - ensuring door-to-door load integrity.

Why Choose
Tiger Cool Express

The variability of market capacity throughout the course of the year increases overall costs as shippers are forced to look outside their normal providers. Our growing container count offers year round peace of mind with the capacity you expect and deserve.

An Intermodal train can haul the equivalent of approximately 280 truckloads of freight with each ton traveling an average of 473 miles on one gallon of fuel. The relative energy efficiency of rail is estimated at 1.5 to five times that of trucking. 

As an intermodal service provider, we are capable of picking up and delivering freight on time as promised. In today’s environment, this often means that our transit times are equal to those of an Over-The-Road Carrier. Our commitment is to partner with professional draymen and to utilize the Class 1 railroads in order to meet your service expectations every day.

When you choose Tiger Cool Express you will discover that we are small enough to care and large enough to deliver the value and service you expect and deserve. Our Customer Service team is staffed to provide our customers with a single point of contact who you can always rely on.

By converting from truckload to Tiger Cool’s Intermodal Temperature Control service, you will experience cost savings throughout the year. Choosing to move your freight via the rail not only improves your cost in fuel but also improves your carbon footprint while impacting your environmental sustainability efforts

Our state-of-the-art, container visibility technology includes telematics to monitor location, direction, and speed - ensuring door-to-door load integrity.

Why Choose
Tiger Cool Express

The variability of market capacity throughout the course of the year increases overall costs as shippers are forced to look outside their normal providers. Our growing container count offers year round peace of mind with the capacity you expect and deserve.

An Intermodal train can haul the equivalent of approximately 280 truckloads of freight with each ton traveling an average of 473 miles on one gallon of fuel. The relative energy efficiency of rail is estimated at 1.5 to five times that of trucking. 

As an intermodal service provider, we are capable of picking up and delivering freight on time as promised. In today’s environment, this often means that our transit times are equal to those of an Over-The-Road Carrier. Our commitment is to partner with professional draymen and to utilize the Class 1 railroads in order to meet your service expectations every day.

When you choose Tiger Cool Express you will discover that we are small enough to care and large enough to deliver the value and service you expect and deserve. Our Customer Service team is staffed to provide our customers with a single point of contact who you can always rely on.

By converting from truckload to Tiger Cool’s Intermodal Temperature Control service, you will experience cost savings throughout the year. Choosing to move your freight via the rail not only improves your cost in fuel but also improves your carbon footprint while impacting your environmental sustainability efforts

Our state-of-the-art, container visibility technology includes telematics to monitor location, direction, and speed - ensuring door-to-door load integrity.

Green Means Smarter Logistics

Intermodal shipping combines the efficiency of rail with the flexibility of trucking. For shippers, using intermodal can dramatically reduce emissions while lowering transportation costs.

An Intermodal train can haul the equivalent of approximately 280 truckloads of freight with each ton traveling an average of 473 miles on one gallon of fuel. The relative energy efficiency of rail is estimated at 1.5 to 5 times that of trucking. Class 1 railway operations on average emit about 22 grams of CO2 per ton-mile compared to truck operations which emit 161 grams per ton-mile.

Green Means Smarter Logistics

Intermodal shipping combines the efficiency of rail with the flexibility of trucking. For shippers, using intermodal can dramatically reduce emissions while lowering transportation costs.

An Intermodal train can haul the equivalent of approximately 280 truckloads of freight with each ton traveling an average of 473 miles on one gallon of fuel. The relative energy efficiency of rail is estimated at 1.5 to 5 times that of trucking. Class 1 railway operations on average emit about 22 grams of CO2 per ton-mile compared to truck operations which emit 161 grams per ton-mile.

Green Means Smarter Logistics

Intermodal shipping combines the efficiency of rail with the flexibility of trucking. For shippers, using intermodal can dramatically reduce emissions while lowering transportation costs.

An Intermodal train can haul the equivalent of approximately 280 truckloads of freight with each ton traveling an average of 473 miles on one gallon of fuel. The relative energy efficiency of rail is estimated at 1.5 to 5 times that of trucking. Class 1 railway operations on average emit about 22 grams of CO2 per ton-mile compared to truck operations which emit 161 grams per ton-mile.

Mode

Distance

Weight

Emissions Factor

Total Emissions

Intermodal

0
Total Miles
0
Short Tons
0 g
Co2/ton-mile
0
Grams of Co2

Truck

0
Total Miles
0
Short Tons
0 g
Co2/ton-mile
0
Grams of Co2

Environmental Defense Fund - The Green Freight Handbook

A Few Items We Haul

We haul a wide variety of temperature controlled items.

A Few Items
We Haul

We haul a wide variety of temperature controlled items.

Nursery Stock

Seafood

Juices

Bakery Goods

Chocolate

Citrus

Wine

Apples

Meats

Melons

Packaged Food

Cheese

Ice Cream

Soy Products

Beer and Liquor

Grapes

Crackers

Vegetables

Yogurt

Sauces

Dry Goods

Flavorings

Health Products

Avocados

A Few Items We Haul

We haul a wide variety of temperature controlled items.

Produce

Bakery Goods

Wine

Packaged Food

Produce

Bakery Goods

Dry Goods

Yogurt

Packaged Foods

Wine

Nursery Stock

Sauces

Ice Cream

Cheese

Chocolate

Seafood

News Items and Articles

The latest articles, press releases, or stories featuring Tiger Cool Express.

News Items and Articles

The latest articles, press releases, or stories featuring Tiger Cool Express.

News Items
and Articles

The latest articles, press releases, or stories featuring Tiger Cool Express.

Intermodal's Final Battle

By Ted Prince

As originally Published in the Journal of Commerce

Intermodal's Final Battle

By Ted Prince

As originally published in The Journal of Commerce

“Like a great battle of lore, the intermodal industry probably is in the final chapters of the conflict between trailers and containers. The history of these two equipment types parallels the history of transportation in the United States.”

The history of these two equipment types parallels the history of transportation in the US. Domestic intermodal arose after World War II with trailers as the preferred asset. As the highway trailer grew in length and width, the railroads strove to keep up. Containers were for oceanborne cargo, and railroads handled this business almost as an afterthought.

All of this changed in the late 1970s as international cargo volumes exploded and double-stack technology evolved. Some railroads embraced this new business model. Others resisted. Thirty-five years later, the results of these decisions are still evident. When the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach wanted to build an Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, only Southern Pacific (SP) took part. Union Pacific was able to overcome this omission by merging with SP 20 years later. Santa Fe (now BNSF) never recovered from its refusal. Although BNSF has tried to remedy this oversight by building the Southerm California International Gateway, it hasn’t broken ground.

In 1989, J.B. Hunt (the man and the company) realized his truckload advantage was disappearing and he signed a deal with Santa Fe to cannibalize his long-haul truck business with intermodal. Originally a joint venture named “Quantum” that was to use trailers, Hunt quickly saw the benefits of domestic containers and converted. This decision, so obvious today, was a second bet-the-company move. A decade of struggle followed — the company almost abandoned intermodal — but it emerged as an intermodal butterfly after its metamorphosis from a truckload carrier.

Major truckload carriers, convinced of their righteous commitment to trailers, ridiculed Hunt’s container decision. They were wrong and some belatedly converted to containers. They discovered how hard it was. And still, over a decade later, they are striving to emulate J.B. Hunt’s ruthless intermodal efficiency. Domestic containers aren’t trailers, and good intermodal operators must unlearn truckload tenets. This is often culturally difficult when they refuse to become an intermodal company with trucks in favor of remaining a half-pregnant truckload carrier with intermodal.

Nevertheless, railroads supported trailers as a gateway to full domestic containerization, and as long as UPS relied on trailers, there was sufficient network density for trailers. Two things changed in the last 10 years, however: UPS started using domestic containers, and network capacity, especially in terminals, became constrained. Running a vanilla terminal with one type of traffic (domestic or ISO containers, for example) is difficult. Each additional equipment type increases complexity exponentially.

Two recent trends are evident: Trailer rates have increased much more than other rates, and railroads have started canceling trailer service. (Look no further than Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, a CSX ramp built specifically to attract truckload traffic, which is now container-only.) Some would counter that the recent rise of trailer volumes points to a trailer renaissance, but these are generally viewed as desperate moves by truckload carriers with no drivers. Railroads will retain some of this business — in fewer corridors — but drastically escalated rates will reflect the inelastic nature of this demand.

BNSF recently informed its trailer customers that ramps in Willow Springs and San Bernardino, California, would be trailer-free by the end of 2018. In their stead, customers who fail to convert to containers will need to use Joliet, Illinois, and Hobart, California, respectively. Both terminals have geographical expense issues, and Hobart has been a high-wire-blivit operation for 20 years, handling all three equipment types — while growing volumes almost in defiance of accepted norms.

The problem for trailer customers is how to respond to higher rates and reduced network choice. Because most truckload carriers have a common fleet for highway and intermodal, it’s difficult to separate them. And even if they’re willing to replace their highway fleet with containers, the transition will be difficult operationally and challenging financially as they try to maintain a pricing distinction between the two. They will have to abandon their sales approach that sold trailers as a better product and overcome their operational ignorance when most of the industry’s talent is restricted with non-compete agreements.

It appears containers will finally prevail. The question is how the current trailer providers will adopt and how shippers will respond to container rules.

Intermodal's Final Battle

By Ted Prince

As originally Published in the Journal of Commerce

Intermodal's Final Battle

By Ted Prince

As originally published in The Journal of Commerce

“Like a great battle of lore, the intermodal industry probably is in the final chapters of the conflict between trailers and containers. The history of these two equipment types parallels the history of transportation in the United States.”

The history of these two equipment types parallels the history of transportation in the US. Domestic intermodal arose after World War II with trailers as the preferred asset. As the highway trailer grew in length and width, the railroads strove to keep up. Containers were for oceanborne cargo, and railroads handled this business almost as an afterthought.

All of this changed in the late 1970s as international cargo volumes exploded and double-stack technology evolved. Some railroads embraced this new business model. Others resisted. Thirty-five years later, the results of these decisions are still evident. When the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach wanted to build an Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, only Southern Pacific (SP) took part. Union Pacific was able to overcome this omission by merging with SP 20 years later. Santa Fe (now BNSF) never recovered from its refusal. Although BNSF has tried to remedy this oversight by building the Southerm California International Gateway, it hasn’t broken ground.

In 1989, J.B. Hunt (the man and the company) realized his truckload advantage was disappearing and he signed a deal with Santa Fe to cannibalize his long-haul truck business with intermodal. Originally a joint venture named “Quantum” that was to use trailers, Hunt quickly saw the benefits of domestic containers and converted. This decision, so obvious today, was a second bet-the-company move. A decade of struggle followed — the company almost abandoned intermodal — but it emerged as an intermodal butterfly after its metamorphosis from a truckload carrier.

Major truckload carriers, convinced of their righteous commitment to trailers, ridiculed Hunt’s container decision. They were wrong and some belatedly converted to containers. They discovered how hard it was. And still, over a decade later, they are striving to emulate J.B. Hunt’s ruthless intermodal efficiency. Domestic containers aren’t trailers, and good intermodal operators must unlearn truckload tenets. This is often culturally difficult when they refuse to become an intermodal company with trucks in favor of remaining a half-pregnant truckload carrier with intermodal.

Nevertheless, railroads supported trailers as a gateway to full domestic containerization, and as long as UPS relied on trailers, there was sufficient network density for trailers. Two things changed in the last 10 years, however: UPS started using domestic containers, and network capacity, especially in terminals, became constrained. Running a vanilla terminal with one type of traffic (domestic or ISO containers, for example) is difficult. Each additional equipment type increases complexity exponentially.

Two recent trends are evident: Trailer rates have increased much more than other rates, and railroads have started canceling trailer service. (Look no further than Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, a CSX ramp built specifically to attract truckload traffic, which is now container-only.) Some would counter that the recent rise of trailer volumes points to a trailer renaissance, but these are generally viewed as desperate moves by truckload carriers with no drivers. Railroads will retain some of this business — in fewer corridors — but drastically escalated rates will reflect the inelastic nature of this demand.

BNSF recently informed its trailer customers that ramps in Willow Springs and San Bernardino, California, would be trailer-free by the end of 2018. In their stead, customers who fail to convert to containers will need to use Joliet, Illinois, and Hobart, California, respectively. Both terminals have geographical expense issues, and Hobart has been a high-wire-blivit operation for 20 years, handling all three equipment types — while growing volumes almost in defiance of accepted norms.

The problem for trailer customers is how to respond to higher rates and reduced network choice. Because most truckload carriers have a common fleet for highway and intermodal, it’s difficult to separate them. And even if they’re willing to replace their highway fleet with containers, the transition will be difficult operationally and challenging financially as they try to maintain a pricing distinction between the two. They will have to abandon their sales approach that sold trailers as a better product and overcome their operational ignorance when most of the industry’s talent is restricted with non-compete agreements.

It appears containers will finally prevail. The question is how the current trailer providers will adopt and how shippers will respond to container rules.

US Intermodal Rail Faces Familiar Threat

By Ted Prince

As Originally Published in the Journal of Commerce

US Intermodal Rail Faces Familiar Threat

By Ted Prince

As originally published in The Journal of Commerce

 

 

The railroads’ focus on domestic intermodal remained about moving trailers — if they were 40 or 45 feet — primarily for intermodal marketing companies, the Post Office, and Motor carriers, such as Schneider National, refused the repeated entreaties of railroads to implement intermodal solutions based on their belief that the advanced truckload model developed after deregulation was the one — and only — answer to meet customer expectations.

That changed, when, in 1989, the Santa Fe Railway Co. (ATSF) and JB Hunt formed Quantum, a joint venture to move 48-foot trailers between the Midwest and California. This was cannibalization too. JB Hunt (the man and the company) realized that his long-haul network was not sustainable. Ironically, part of his concern was driver supply. Rather than wait to have his competitors cannibalize his market, he took the bold step of doing it himself. The ATSF also cannibalized its market, although it is unclear if it truly understood the magnitude and ramifications of what it was giving away.

Since 1989, the introduction of 53-foot double-stack sparked a 25-year explosion of growth that transformed the railroad and intermodal industries. These were the good old days. With coal providing high returns — and cash flows — railroads could invest to grow intermodal. These investments transformed the networks.

In the 1970s, intermodal was handled in an intricate many-to-many network. It was not unusual for an intermodal terminal to serve (and be served by) 25 to 40 percent of the ramps in that railroad. This was supported by complex, enroute switching where cars were “block swapped” among many trains. Although such an arrangement maximized network scope, it created diseconomies of scale.

Over time, railroads built an array of large, greenfield terminals that supported a network of high-volume trains assembled at origin and run intact to destination. These point-to-point trains eliminated the cost and uncertainty of intermediate rehandling. Service reliability improved because trains no longer needed to “wait” for connecting traffic.

Rail networks are driven by economies of scale. As the technology of double-stack and locomotive traction changed, the desired premium train length has increased by almost 30 percent. Given sidings of sufficient length, railroads will now run trains of up to 10,000 feet (and more). However, since there are very few origin-destination pairs that have such daily volume and balance, the result has been “back to the future” operating strategies.

In the absence of point-to-point corridors, railroads implemented other approaches:

  • Traffic from a single inbound train is rehandled in a car-to-car transfer terminal, which connects to multiple outbound trains Non-intermodal carload volume may be added to “fill out” an intermodal train (see Figure 1)
  • "Hub and Spoke”: Traffic from a single inbound train is rehandled in a car-to-car transfer terminal, which connects to multiple outbound trains (see Figure 2)
  • Non-intermodal carload volume may be added to “fill out” an intermodal train. When fill is comprised of reliable, high-service traffic (e.g., automotive multi-levels) premium service can frequently be maintained. However, as the fill varies by corridors, service level, and day-of-the week volumes, the intermodal schedule may be significantly degraded.

 

 

 

Rail networks are generally viewed as the most complex of all asset-based network-operating systems. The train planning described above is further complicated by the characteristics of intermodal terminals. The major challenge occurs when the desired train length is greater than the available ramp track space.

  • This requires trains being handled in different pieces (see Figure 3). This poses a scheduling dilemma. Should availability be based on the 75 percent that can be spotted on arrival — which would misstate the last 25 percent; or, should availability be based on the absolute last unloaded unit  — which might cause the first 75 percent to delay an achievable delivery for one day.
  • Intermodal traffic is not uniform; trailers, containers, and rail cars come in different configurations. The (unloaded) inbound cars might not be in the desired location for (loading) outbound cars.
  • The extra rehandling increases switching expense, elapsed time, and service uncertainty.

From 1980 to 2010, it is estimated that the number of intermodal terminals shrunk by 90 percent — even though volume grew. As mega-terminals were built, small ramps were frequently closed. This improved railroad linehaul efficiency, although it reduced intermodal competitiveness versus truck. Intermodal competitive position to truck can be quantified by two metrics. In both cases, the lower the number, the more competitive intermodal is with truck.

  • Intermodal miles (pickup, delivery, and rail) versus truck door-to-door miles
  • (Roundtrip) drayage miles as a percent of intermodal miles

Figures 5 to 8 analyze intermodal versus truck from points in Washington to Bolingbrook, Illinois

  • The move from Kent over the Seattle ramp is very competitive to truck because it has very little circuitry (see Figure 5)
  • The move from Prescott over the Seattle ramp is not competitive with truck because it is very circuitous (see Figure 6)
  • However, the move from Prescott over a theoretical Burbank ramp could be very competitive to truck because it has very little circuitry (see Figure 7)

The theoretical Burbank ramp could represent the future of intermodal. Although intermodal will benefit from electronic logging device enforcement on trucks, intermodal drayage could also be subject to the same enforcement. The obvious solution to this challenge is to create more intermodal terminals to reduce the drayage distance and likelihood of reverse circuitry (see Figure 8).

Terminals built in the 1980s were frequently built “on the cheap.” These “pocket ramps” could be built in the same manner. The network dilution could be minimized by using stub-end trains to serve them to/from a select number of major markets and gateways (e.g., Chicago.)

The challenge is that such an approach may fly in the face of current doctrine of longer trains and fewer ramps. It might even appear as cannibalizing operating margins; however, the past 40 years have proven that the intermodal innovator willing to dismantle an “established” methodology has emerged as the market leader. Perhaps this “Back to the Future” approach would serve the industry well.

I

5750 West 95th St., Ste. 250
Overland Park, KS 66207

1-888-733-8430
marketing@tigercoolexpress.com

I

Protect From Freeze

With a temperature control range of -20 to 80 degrees, our temperature controlled containers can also provide product protection and integrity during the winter months.

Inside Length
596 Inches

Inside Width
97 Inches

Inside Height
102 Inches

Volume
3,418 Cubic Feet

Empty Weight
13,125 Pounds

Net Weight& Chassis
20,625 Pounds

Fuel Tank Capacity
120 Gallons

Max Cargo Weight
42,500 Pounds

Temperature Range
-20 to 80 F

Pallet Positions
28-Single/56-Double

Request a Quote

Unless otherwise agreed in a written agreement signed by Tiger Cool Express, freight movements and other services provided by Tiger Cool Express will be governed by the Tiger Cool Express, LLC Rules of Transportation.