Trains.com

Triple crown roadrailer service

11964 views
20 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
CGW
  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
  • 100 posts
Triple crown roadrailer service
Posted by CGW on Saturday, November 23, 2013 10:55 AM

I've read from other sites rumors that Triple crown is discontinuing roadrailer service.  Is there any truth to this?

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:26 PM

The other day I was talking with the UTU-E local chairman about the last monthly meeting of union chairmen and the railroad superintendents.  He said that we will be getting a Triple Crown stack train that will operate between Chicago and the Twin Cities, via the Spine line.  It will use the Spine (exCNW/RI) between the Twin Cities and Nevada IA and then the east/west (exCNW) main between there and Chicago.  

He didn't really say, but it sounds like it will replace the roadrailer train that runs via the Wisconsin route.  He said the routing via Iowa was because they were starting to have trouble (congestion?) on the Wisconsin route.

Jeff  

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Defiance Ohio
  • 13,320 posts
Posted by JoeKoh on Saturday, November 23, 2013 12:51 PM

I've heard that the roadrailers  (FRA) life is running out. We have seen more triple crown trailers on regular NS trains. Time will tell.

stay safe

Joe

Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").

 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Saturday, November 23, 2013 1:48 PM

jeffhergert

The other day I was talking with the UTU-E local chairman about the last monthly meeting of union chairmen and the railroad superintendents.  He said that we will be getting a Triple Crown stack train that will operate between Chicago and the Twin Cities, via the Spine line.  It will use the Spine (exCNW/RI) between the Twin Cities and Nevada IA and then the east/west (exCNW) main between there and Chicago.  

He didn't really say, but it sounds like it will replace the roadrailer train that runs via the Wisconsin route.  He said the routing via Iowa was because they were starting to have trouble (congestion?) on the Wisconsin route.

Jeff  

Here is a link to a recent  ( Triple Crown) video @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnKxBKrSbrU

This is a link to the website which has a lot of available information@ http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/

           I am not currently familiar with the Triple Crown Operations, ( My experience with them dates back to the days when it was a wholly-owned subsidiary of North American Van lined..Befor Norfolk Southern bough them from NAVL.  They have been in business for a lot of years, and Equipment Changes have been a constant( as with any Operation that uses Trailer, Trucks and railroad equipment ).  I do see on occasion their train that runs out of Ft.Worth/Kansas City via Winfield/ Arkansas City.  It runs theough this area on BNSF.  The trains I have seen seem to run most of the time to 100 plus trailers, and NS run- through power.

   My feeling is that stacks would be a pretty radical change for their Operations.  My 2 Cents

 

 


 

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Monday, November 25, 2013 12:03 PM
My opinion.
It would not surprise me to see NS drop Road Railers. The main advantage of Road Railers is the low initail costs for terminals. The disadvantage compared to double stack on congested main lines starts being a problem when you have a lot of traffic. Then choices tend to get driven by which train represents more money. At some point you reach a tipping point.
The TripleCrown would continue as a container. Mostly customers want freight moved on a reliable schedule and without paying a lot of money.
When you start running 120 boxes whether they are containers or trailers in a full train it makes more sense to use double stack. The bigger advantage of double stack is shorter train lengths or more capacity in the same train lengths was bound to catch up.
I still think that roadrailers or road runners do make sense for feeder operations or for places where you can either have short trains or a lot of boxes going short distances (under 500 miles) .

Thx IGN
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Valparaiso, In
  • 5,921 posts
Posted by MP173 on Monday, November 25, 2013 6:38 PM

They are ordering new equipment.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, November 25, 2013 7:08 PM

The biggest advantage I see of 'Roadrailer' trains is in motive power requirements to move the train.  While the Roadrailer trailers are constructed more stoutly than conventional trailers, the use of a 'bogie cradle' rail truck/trailer support would leave about 30 tons of intermodal freight car out of the trains trailing tonnage for every two trailers in the train.  Depending on train size, one or two locomotives could maintain track speed vs. three or four that would be needed to haul the same number of trailers on conventional intermodal cars.

The disadvantage is that the size of a train is limited by the strength of the trailers and if a serious grade is encountered, all the trailing tonnage of the train is now focused on the first trailer beind the engines.  I doubt that a rear end helper could be used, as I doubt the trailers could withstand the buff forces the helper engine would generate pushing against the rear trailer of the train.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: WSOR Northern Div.
  • 1,559 posts
Posted by WSOR 3801 on Monday, November 25, 2013 9:20 PM

The Roadrailer trains I see out my door (UP Adams line) usually have two engines, big ones like Dash 9s and SD70s.  One facing each way usually, for quicker turn-around at the end points.  Usually NS power. 

I think the Roadrailers are a dynamic brake only type of train.  Being so light, taking a minimum set would probably stop the train pretty quick. 

The biggest disadvantage I see is that they are different.  No normal couplers, and so forth.  Things that are drastically different usually have a hard time getting accepted. 

It does help get into the John Kneiling mindset.  It IS different, so run it different, keep the wheels turning, and make some money.  No need to stop in a yard for classification, customer supplies the train, and so forth. 

Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, November 25, 2013 9:37 PM

WSOR 3801

The Roadrailer trains I see out my door (UP Adams line) usually have two engines, big ones like Dash 9s and SD70s.  One facing each way usually, for quicker turn-around at the end points.  Usually NS power. 

I think the Roadrailers are a dynamic brake only type of train.  Being so light, taking a minimum set would probably stop the train pretty quick. 

The biggest disadvantage I see is that they are different.  No normal couplers, and so forth.  Things that are drastically different usually have a hard time getting accepted. 

It does help get into the John Kneiling mindset.  It IS different, so run it different, keep the wheels turning, and make some money.  No need to stop in a yard for classification, customer supplies the train, and so forth. 

Roadailers used to be notorious for kickers.  But they do have the advantage of being pretty secure from theft since the trailers are so close to each other that there's no room to open the end doors.

I've been hearing they were going out of business for the past 10 years.  Seems to be a common rumor.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

CGW
  • Member since
    June 2008
  • From: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
  • 100 posts
Posted by CGW on Tuesday, November 26, 2013 10:25 AM

Are they ordering new roadrailers?, containers?, or both?

Thx Jeff

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: US
  • 377 posts
Posted by jsanchez on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:15 AM

The Roadrailers do have an air brake system,(the hoses and control valve system are much smaller than on a normal freight car ). We try to avoid using the air as much as possible, they tend to kick very easily. Dynamic braking is the normal way of stopping these trains and your right they are very light, it take a quite a bit of caution with safety stops to couple these things up.

James Sanchez

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 12:39 AM

They are going to have a problem locating a terminal in the Twin Cities. The current location at UP's East Minneapolis Yard does not have adequate space for a conventional terminal with cranes or reachstackers, and chassis. If it did the UP would have established an Intermodal Terminal in the Twin Cities long ago. The last time the UP looked at building a terminal it was with MNDOT proposing a Union Terminal serving UP, BNSF and CP, to be located on part of the site of the closed Gopher Arsenal in Rosemount along the Spine Line. Obviously this site was totally unacceptable to both BNSF and CP.

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Brooklyn Center, MN.
  • 702 posts
Posted by Los Angeles Rams Guy on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 6:45 AM

beaulieu

They are going to have a problem locating a terminal in the Twin Cities. The current location at UP's East Minneapolis Yard does not have adequate space for a conventional terminal with cranes or reachstackers, and chassis. If it did the UP would have established an Intermodal Terminal in the Twin Cities long ago. The last time the UP looked at building a terminal it was with MNDOT proposing a Union Terminal serving UP, BNSF and CP, to be located on part of the site of the closed Gopher Arsenal in Rosemount along the Spine Line. Obviously this site was totally unacceptable to both BNSF and CP.

That was my concern as well although I keep hearing rumors that UP will build their own facility somewhere on the south side of town. 

"Beating 'SC is not a matter of life or death. It's more important than that." Former UCLA Head Football Coach Red Sanders
  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 5 posts
Posted by Iforgot on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 1:52 PM
The DM&E bridge in owatonna still interferes with doublestack being able to run up and down the spine. Heard rumor that UP is looking to reopen the old CGW line that ran from roseport down to cannon falls and using it as a second main line with the spine. After driving by the intersection of 145th st and highway 52 yesterday the city of rosemount has signs up on the old CGW right of way there that they are gonna redevelop that area into commercial use. So if the city does that it will pose a problem for reopening that line.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Wisconsin, land o' cows
  • 207 posts
Posted by mikeyuhas on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 2:42 PM

Interesting! Probably not viable to use the Milwaukee/Adams/Altoona routing for stacks because of clearance issues.

Thank you for reading Trains magazine! click here if you dare
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:20 PM

A couple years ago, IANR's Dan Sabin was a speaker at a railfan event.  Although the main topic of his was about a museum he was sponsoring at Manly, IA, he gave an overview of what was going on with the IANR.  One of the future projects he mentioned was the development of an intermodal facility in conjunction with the UP at Manly to serve southern Minnesota and northern Iowa.  He said the UP was receptive to the idea, but nothing so far has developed.

Jeff 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 15 posts
Posted by Dasco on Monday, December 2, 2013 3:31 PM

First off, CGW never ran directly from Rosemount to Cannon Falls.  They did run from Roseport down to Randolph, where PGR runs the ex CGW from Northfield through Randolph and on to Cannon Falls.   There's next to no chance UP is going to put back 20 miles of long abandoned track, most of which is now farmland.   Then where to from Cannon Falls since that's a dead end track.  Maybe you heard of an idea to reopen that down to Randolph then over the PGR to Northfield. but I can't see that being a better solution than putting in a siding or two.

  • Member since
    October 2009
  • 37 posts
Posted by prk166 on Monday, March 23, 2015 9:17 PM

I spotted a Triple Crown in Hudson, WI tonight.  If they're running them regularly on the Spine Line, then I lucked out seeing them on a temporary routing.

Tags: Triple Crown
Moderator
  • Member since
    January 2011
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 1,532 posts
Posted by Brian Schmidt on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 8:16 AM

They run regularly through Wisconsin still.

Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Pittsburgh, PA
  • 1,155 posts
Posted by tcwright973 on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:23 AM

I see them on the Fort Wayne Line between Pittsburgh & Conway Yard quite often. This is from last Saturday:

 

 

Tom

Pittsburgh, PA

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Pittsburgh, PA
  • 1,155 posts
Posted by tcwright973 on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:26 AM

For some reason, I'm not able to edit my post. What I neglected to mention was the power on this train was a D9-44CW & a D8-40CW.

Tom

Pittsburgh, PA

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy