beaulieu Greyhounds take a look at this presentation. This system is currently running between France and Italy, and the Perpignan to Luxembourg service is also running. The rest is their aspirations. The unknown is the operating costs. Modalohr
Greyhounds take a look at this presentation. This system is currently running between France and Italy, and the Perpignan to Luxembourg service is also running. The rest is their aspirations. The unknown is the operating costs.
Modalohr
Interesting concept. I can see where this may have quite a bit of growth potential in Europe where there is a lot of interest currently in shifting truck traffic to the rails in a manner that will mesh well with the mainly passenger oriented railway system.
In the very different North american railroad industry I guess this might be tried as the latest in many attempts to develop new equipment and services to make short to medium haul (200 to 500 mile corridors)intermodal traffic profitable. Despite many attempts by smart railroad people, for those distances the trucking companies are still the most competitive..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Well, I don't know. I mean that. I don't know. I don't know anything about the economics of moving freight in Europe or what the train vs truck competitive situation is over there.
But at first impression, this looks like an awfully expensive system. (Even with a one person crew, which those trains have, even though one person crews won't work anywhere, at any place or at any time, even where they do work just fine. One person road crews do run safely in the US as well as in Europe.)
They've still got the locomotive and all the negatives that brings. I reason that the Iron Highway/CP Expresway system with its multi-ramp circus loading would be about as fast to load/unload and far less expensive even with its locomotives. The fancy loading system of those European flatcars will add a lot of weight to drag around. The railroad doesn't get paid for moving the flatcar. It only gets paid for moving the freight in the trailer. Any extra weight is money out the door. (as in requiring more energy.) As I was watching the video I kept thinking "Oh, Ouch, the maitenance (cost) required on that fancy loading system."
Circus loading is a very viable option for low volume situations. There are low cost container transfer options that would also work in low volume situations. In high volume situations mechanized terminals and double stack are unbeatable. They can't use DS in Europe because of clearance problems. Here, most of the volume lanes are now open, or are being opened (Donner Pass/Heartland Corridor), to DS.
I can't see a market for the Modalohr System east of the Atlantic and north of Panama. But I ain't in charge and I've been wrong before. (I'll probably be wrong again someday.)
aut1rml A number of years ago United Parcel Service tryed to work out a plan with the railroad,BNSF and others for a bullet train from coast to coast. The plan fell thru because The railroad wanted paid for other trains that would be delayed do to the bullet train. It seems that no matter how fast your train may move, you are still taking up track space of a much used artery. Shuttle trains like this seem logical until you consider the logistical nightmare it woulod cause the track owning railoroads.
A number of years ago United Parcel Service tryed to work out a plan with the railroad,BNSF and others for a bullet train from coast to coast. The plan fell thru because The railroad wanted paid for other trains that would be delayed do to the bullet train. It seems that no matter how fast your train may move, you are still taking up track space of a much used artery. Shuttle trains like this seem logical until you consider the logistical nightmare it woulod cause the track owning railoroads.
Yes, It will not work on the types of routes you mention. There's too much traffic.
It's niche would be on line such as I mentioned. Lines with current low train density (4 trains/day maybe). Such lines do exist in North America and could use some more business.
greyhounds To use this in the US you'd need inovations such as: 1) A one person crew. Despite the facts that this equipment could be safely operated with a one person crew, and that anything more than one person would be wasteful, this alone will send people into hysteria.
To use this in the US you'd need inovations such as:
1) A one person crew. Despite the facts that this equipment could be safely operated with a one person crew, and that anything more than one person would be wasteful, this alone will send people into hysteria.
!!!!
How long have you been in railroading? Anyone who has ever experienced railroading will tell you that 1-man crews, no matter what type of train it is, are unsafe. There's too many variables to even attempt to justify one person operating a train as both the Engineer, Conductor, and expect them to do both jobs well. Ever heard the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none"? It applies in this case, ten fold.
Fact is, you need two sets of eyes and ears to get the job done.
Two people mean less chances for missed signals, missed slow orders, missed working limits, etc. I don't care what fancy safety system you throw at me, there are always ways to disable them, or to "get away" with this or that.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Yar! Kneiling was "The Iconoclast". Phillips is the "Potomac Pundit".
Having a 'Gen-Set' on an intermodal would obviate its advantages -- being able to shut down engines when they are not needed. They would be in "Run 8" most of the time, a job for road locomotives. They, of course, are of lower horsepower rating, so you would need many of them. Might be nice to watch... Each loco has its "niche", and no one would advocate 0-4-0 steam switchers to move inter-modal trains, even in a 12 loco lashup, at 20 mph...
We, up in the "cold north" of Montana are using C44s for switchers on the BNSF. The GP-38 are all stored. The CWs aren't great, as switchers, because of the lack of visibility, but they are a lot more reliable. Winter is coming. We'll see if they can utilize their "auto-shutdown" features as the weather gets colder. +31.8 degrees, here in Shelberia, this morning! Anyhoo, when the GEs are idling, they are much quieter than their "Jimmy Junk" counterparts. Sorry, "O'Bama Motors".
Bill
peterjenkinson1956 thanks for correcting me don phillips and knieling now i remember them... thanks for posting the video it is a very interesting video i cannot understand why some one didnot pick the system up and run them i could think of many uses for them
thanks for correcting me don phillips and knieling now i remember them...
thanks for posting the video it is a very interesting video i cannot understand why some one didnot pick the system up and run them i could think of many uses for them
They did try to run the equipment in revenue service. They tried it in Europe and in Australia.
http://railpix.railmedia.com.au/index.php?uid=1503
It didn't work out commercially. Like you, I can think of many uses for this equipment, but each use has to take in more dollars than it cost in order for the concept to be successful. It couldn't do that.
A major frustration is that there is rarely, if ever, a post mortem done when something like this fails. If we knew why it didn't work we'd have a better chance of making the next attempt successful. It does have the potential to deal with those "Killer" drayage costs that RWM so correctly cited as a very limiting factor on rail intermodal.
IMHO, in the US it would be "Just Too Much Inovation." RWM once came up with a concept that if something new used more than one inovation, it wasn't going to work. He's got a point.
2) A low cost container transfer system suited to low volume intermodal terminals. Such systems have been available for decades. Their use would require thought. People don't like it when someone moves their cheese, they like to follow established procedures.
There would be more inovations requied to use this. But these two alone are one too many. It might work just fine on low volume lines that have traffic potential. The Iowa Interstate and CN's Iowa line come quickly to my midwest mind. But a lot of folks would have to think outside of the box to make it go and the likelyhood of that happening is slight.
A lot of interesting stuff here. I don't know if someone mentioned it and I just missed it or not, but there is something an intermodal needs over a drag freight. Speed. I don't know much about Gen sets as of yet, but would they be able to reach a sufficient speed to move a time sensitive train effectively?
carnej1 NS has recently taken delivery of some rebuilt/repowered SD60s from Progress Rail called PR4000s which are a variation on the Genset idea. They have a 12 cylinder prime mover rated at 3100HP and a smaller auxiliary Genset which puts out about 700HP. The smaller engine kicks in when the locomotive requires maximum power and can also be used for hostling with the prime mover shut down... Railpower Technologies designs for their Genset roadswitcher line included concepts for road locomotives of as much as 6,000HP (using 8 Gensets):
NS has recently taken delivery of some rebuilt/repowered SD60s from Progress Rail called PR4000s which are a variation on the Genset idea. They have a 12 cylinder prime mover rated at 3100HP and a smaller auxiliary Genset which puts out about 700HP. The smaller engine kicks in when the locomotive requires maximum power and can also be used for hostling with the prime mover shut down...
Railpower Technologies designs for their Genset roadswitcher line included concepts for road locomotives of as much as 6,000HP (using 8 Gensets):
This is an interesting concept. Rather than using multiple, identically sized prime movers, several differently sized ones could be used. Each would be stepped up in a binary arrangement such as 1,2,4,8 and so on. If we equate one power unit equal to 400 horsepower, such a locomotive would produce 15 times 400 horsepower, or 6,000 horsepower. Thus, with just four diesels it would be possible to generate 15 units of power. The power would always be matched to the load by cutting in and out just the right diesel combination needed.
Another interesting part of such a concept is that all but the smallest diesel could be operated in a strictly full throttle or off mode. The smallest one would ramp up and down in output to move between power steps. It would take some careful control work to make such a scheme practical and with the latest problems the current gensets are exhibiting, perhaps it is too much to ask for.
Nobody is taking this any farther than Progress Rail that I know of. The concept is well known in pumping stations that must satisfy the widely varying and unpredictable needs of water supply in high rise buildings.
Of course, it would be necessary to have appropriately sized diesels available, and be able to fit them into a carbody, no mean task.
Just to clarify a little bit here: John Kneiling - in his book Integral Train Systems, writing his monthly 'The Professional Iconoclast' column in Trains, and in occasional full-length articles also in Trains - certainly advocated dedicated intermodal trains of variable length with 'spine'-type cars connected by drawbars configured into small blocks with distributed power under many of the 'cars', etc. as referenced above.
However, John did not forsee or advocate 'double-stacks', to the best of my knowledge. The large, complicated, and expensive 'Piggy-Packers' and other crane-type machines and the associated 'ramps'/ terminals that are now typically used to load and unload double-stack trains are pretty much inconsistent with his stated design philosophy of low investment cost for the terminal, and simple equipment, flexibility in operations, etc.
If anyone is aware that John ever commented on double-stacks specifically - either pro or con, or in any other manner - I would appreciate your directing me to that, because I'm not recalling any. Thank you.
- Paul North.
peterjenkinson1956 a long time ago in trains magazine there was a writer who went by the name of... potomac pundit... knieling was his name????? he suggested that the then new system of double stack cars with 5 x well cars have generators at each end and some or all of the axles be powered these cars would then be independently powered and a small cab could be fitted to each end and at railroad junctions the cars could be removed from the train and run down branch lines and directly into the customers loading docks sounds like a good idea to me.... perhaps not for the trans con but ok for low tonnage lines
a long time ago in trains magazine there was a writer who went by the name of... potomac pundit... knieling was his name?????
he suggested that the then new system of double stack cars with 5 x well cars have generators at each end and some or all of the axles be powered these cars would then be independently powered and a small cab could be fitted to each end and at railroad junctions the cars could be removed from the train and run down branch lines and directly into the customers loading docks
sounds like a good idea to me.... perhaps not for the trans con but ok for low tonnage lines
John Knieling's integral train concept actually predates doublestacks by almost 2 decades, he was most active writing about it in the 1960's and early Seventies..
The CSX/CP Iron Highway was another development of the idea that evolved into CP's Expressway cars(though they gave up on the self propelled part of the system)..
First, you're confusing Knieling with Don Phillips. Phillips is the "Potomac Pundit". He's a .... Well, never mind. Let's just say that I often strongly disagree with Phillips.
They tried the idea you speak of. It really didn't work commercially. The brand name was "Cargo Sprinter."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv4tIuIJzls
BT CPSO 266 I know gensets would not me good for large intermodal trains. I was more wondering if you could us a genset to haul about maybe something like 4-6 (basically a fraction of a typical intermodal train) 5 unit well cars, so that the railroads could graspe more busniess by not having to wait to load a large number of containers to one location. For example instead of the ruterfurd intermodal terminal having two long trains coming in and out from two different locations. Have several to and from destinations with smaller lighter trains going to and from ruterfurd (or any terminal)
I know gensets would not me good for large intermodal trains. I was more wondering if you could us a genset to haul about maybe something like 4-6 (basically a fraction of a typical intermodal train) 5 unit well cars, so that the railroads could graspe more busniess by not having to wait to load a large number of containers to one location.
For example instead of the ruterfurd intermodal terminal having two long trains coming in and out from two different locations. Have several to and from destinations with smaller lighter trains going to and from ruterfurd (or any terminal)
Even if the locomotive cost $0 and the fuel cost $0 the costs for the track, cars, capacity, terminals, and dray would make this an enormous money loser.
RWM
I know gensets would not me good for large intermodal trains. I was more wondering if you could us a genset to haul about maybe something like 4-6, 5 unit well cars(basically a fration of a typical intermodal train), so that the railroads could graspe more busniess by not having to wait to load a large number of containers to one location.
BT CPSO 266Could railroads use fuel effiecent gensets to haul shorter intermodal trains and do it while maintaining their fuel efficency over trucks and making it worthwill for the railroad? I think this would allow them to have more trains goto more destinations from intermodal terminals that only have two destinations options for intermodal trains (like Ruterfurd, Pa for example witch only has a train going to and arriving from Chicago and to and arriving from another city I can't remember right now.)
Could railroads use fuel effiecent gensets to haul shorter intermodal trains and do it while maintaining their fuel efficency over trucks and making it worthwill for the railroad? I think this would allow them to have more trains goto more destinations from intermodal terminals that only have two destinations options for intermodal trains (like Ruterfurd, Pa for example witch only has a train going to and arriving from Chicago and to and arriving from another city I can't remember right now.)
No. Even if the gensets had twice the fuel efficiency of a standard locomotive in line-haul service (and actually they are worse, as beaulieu points out), it wouldn't save enough money to cut the costs enough for intermodal to matter. What kills intermodal costs is not the line-haul cost, it's the dray cost on each end and the cost of operating the intermodal terminal.
Look at it this way. Suppose the only cost was fuel. Rail intermodal burns 4x less fuel than truck. Suppose fuel costs $3/gallon, and the truck gets 6 mpg per box and the train gets 24 mpg per box. Suppose you're draying 24 miles from a terminal on each end, that's 96 miles total truck distance (2 round trips to the terminal from the dock)
Thus, 96/6 = 18 gallons fuel before the box has actually gone anywhere. Thus the breakeven line-haul distance just for fuel cost for the dray alone is nearly 100 miles. If the truck moves the box 300 miles door-to-door, its fuel use is 50 gallons = $150. If the rail moves the box 300 miles plus the dray, its fuel use is 12 gallons + 18 gallons = 40 gallons = $120. Not much of a savings to pay for building and operating the intermodal terminal, the locomotives, the track, the well cars, etc.
Large shippers with large volumes can generally develop round-trip efficiencies on the dray truck. Offsetting that is that in large volume lanes there tends to be so much highway congestion in the cities and around the intermodal terminals that the dray trips per day become less and less because the truck is spending so much time sitting in traffic or waiting to get in and out of the terminal.
bubbajustin Also, you would need to have like what… 4 of them on the train all with there engines running just to equal one 4,000hp unit. As said before, a genset is used for switching, and locals.
Also, you would need to have like what… 4 of them on the train all with there engines running just to equal one 4,000hp unit. As said before, a genset is used for switching, and locals.
Most Gensets are in the 2000-2100HP range with all engines running so 4 of them would equal 2 4000HP locomotives....
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
BT CPSO 266 Could railroads use fuel effiecent gensets to haul shorter intermodal trains and do it while maintaining their fuel efficency over trucks and making it worthwill for the railroad? I think this would allow them to have more trains goto more destinations from intermodal terminals that only have two destinations options for intermodal trains (like Ruterfurd, Pa for example witch only has a train going to and arriving from Chicago and to and arriving from another city I can't remember right now.)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Ml6bAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Gen-sets are not more fuel efficient when all their engines are running, in fact their maintenance costs will be higher per mile because of more moving parts, lots more. What gen-sets are intended for is switching service where much of the time is spent in low throttle notches, also lighter local trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.