PTC + ECP + DPU - Coal + Intermodal = ?

[daveklepper]

But on the railroad itself, on the main line, a one-speed railroad is the most efficient and safest.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Not all intermodal is the same.  From conversations with a friend, he mentioned that you get different types of service and speed depending on your needs and the rate that you're willing to pay.  Doublestacks out of Long Beach are going to be longer and not as fast as an all-UPS priority-rate train with all sorts of gradations of speed and service in between.

[W.Shawn Gray]

G'day Don,
           An "Intermodal question" flowing from your future gazing.  As Intermodal traffic is about capturing market back from the road-trucking industry I do not understand how that meshes with longer intermodal trains.  Yes for the efficiency benefits railroad companies are moving to longer trains for bulk goods (coal, iron ore &c.) but surely with intermodal the markets hankering for delivery before something is even sent would argue for more shorter trains to (cut delays) increase the speed of any items travel time??  Or am I missing something here like the expected size of the market is so big those long trains would be rolling out every few minutes along the same route (as opposed to the once a shift / day impression I got from the story) ?

Thanks that guy from Auz.   W.Shawn Gray

[W.Shawn Gray]

G'day Don,

carnej1

  The current Natural Gas boom (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Oz is experiencing a similar rapid increase in NG production?) seems to be dictating the next great leap in railroad fuel, and given that LNG (and CNG) are more efficiently used in internal combustion I don't see the steam traction renaissance some predict, at least while there is still plenty of gas.

            Marketing hype. Australia [Auz]  had a Natural Gas boom at the end of the last century beginning of this one, that the stupid John Howard (Federal Conservative) Government over sold on forward contracts to China et al.  So now the foreign mining companies want to frack good farm land with scares water for trickles of Coal Seam Gas (methane also but strictly speaking NOT natural gas) to make up the short fall between forward contract obligations and North West Shelf gas field limited production  resources.  As the locals will not see any gas (or profits) from the destruction of their farming capacity the frackers have a public relations nightmare that is going from bad to worse by the day.

carnej1

As far as "torrified wood" biomass there appears to be a huge debate raging about whether it is really carbon neutral or not (I won't debate the point  but if you web search the issue you will see what I am referring to).

 So once Gas runs out maybe you have a shot but by that time it is possible that the economics of widespread electrification may be far more favorable and/or energy storage systems (you name it; ultracapacitor, flywheel, ect.ect.) may have reached IC/steam like reliability and energy density.

 But predicting the future that far out is always risky so I won't  try...

Thanks for flagging the debate about carbon neutrality of torrified wood bio-mass  ( I will look into to that).   Personally I am more interested in Pyrolysis Oil (trademarked as Bio-oil ) for steam locomotives, something that there is no argument over the carbon neutral credentials of.  As I noted in my original comment  "Canada's tar-sands warp the Peak-oil problem somewhat for North America" along with all your shale-gas it will be some time before North America is short of fossil fuels & natural-gas, but is there any progress being made that such supplies can have carbon offset cost effectively?

Given the world wide shortage of copper I seriously doubt "widespread electrification may be far more favourable" unless some other thing is found to conduct electricity fast enough for the catenary line above.

I agree with you that the ultracapacitors are a very exciting option for the future, especially as batteries and hot climes (like the Southern USA or Auz) look multially incompatable.

Al the best,   W.Shawn Gray

[carnej1]

W.Shawn Gray

G'day Don,
A little surprised you didn't mention the possibility of a return of some re-conceived form of carbon-neutral steam  locomotives in your story. I know that the Canada's tar-sands warp the Peak-oil problem somewhat for North America, but it could easily prove easier to run Carbon Neutral steamers along the line of the Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) research than trying to offset traditional fossil fuels whatever they be (oil, CNG, CPG etc.).

             Internationally the Post-Carbon future for railway locomotive power is not as precarious as my initial reading (5 years ago) suggested.  However locally Australia needs a 'Plan B' for where railways can not be economically electrified Australia is going to discover too late that oversea answers (for a Post-carbon world) are not going to work in a future hotter dryer Australia.

           After the early dramas with the The Canadian Green Goats in the North East USA I don't know how much of the 2040 vision could even be located to the South West of the USA, let-alone here to Auz.

           Final version of my musings researching Post-Carbon Australian Locomotive Option went up on the web the last month  http://www.auzgnosis.com/pgs/auzloco.htm   .

Probably of particular interest to the readership here is:

1#   'Strategy Matrix for Migration of Locomotives to Carbon Neutral Operating Regime' included on page 14 of Folio:1:g4 Germinal Material

2#   Part 3: Looking Forward   A vision of a possible future:
Down by the heliostats1 early in the morning.
     included on page 44 of Folio:1:g4 Germinal Material

Hope you enjoy all this.   W.Shawn Gray

  The current Natural Gas boom (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Oz is experiencing a similar rapid increase in NG production?) seems to be dictating the next great leap in railroad fuel, and given that LNG (and CNG) are more efficiently used in internal combustion I don't see the steam traction renaissance some predict, at least while there is still plenty of gas.

 As far as "torrified wood" biomass there appears to be a huge debate raging about whether it is really carbon neutral or not (I won't debate the point  but if you web search the issue you will see what I am referring to).

 So once Gas runs out maybe you have a shot but by that time it is possible that the economics of widespread electrification may be far more favorable and/or energy storage systems (you name it; ultracapacitor, flywheel, ect.ect.) may have reached IC/steam like reliability and energy density.

 But predicting the future that far out is always risky so I won't  try...

[daveklepper]

Electric controlled braking will come, first with unit trains and then with loose cars, eventualy

GGOD JOB, WELL WRITTEN\\

THANKS

[W.Shawn Gray]

G'day Don,
A little surprised you didn't mention the possibility of a return of some re-conceived form of carbon-neutral steam  locomotives in your story. I know that the Canada's tar-sands warp the Peak-oil problem somewhat for North America, but it could easily prove easier to run Carbon Neutral steamers along the line of the Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) research than trying to offset traditional fossil fuels whatever they be (oil, CNG, CPG etc.).

             Internationally the Post-Carbon future for railway locomotive power is not as precarious as my initial reading (5 years ago) suggested.  However locally Australia needs a 'Plan B' for where railways can not be economically electrified Australia is going to discover too late that oversea answers (for a Post-carbon world) are not going to work in a future hotter dryer Australia.

           After the early dramas with the The Canadian Green Goats in the North East USA I don't know how much of the 2040 vision could even be located to the South West of the USA, let-alone here to Auz.

           Final version of my musings researching Post-Carbon Australian Locomotive Option went up on the web the last month  http://www.auzgnosis.com/pgs/auzloco.htm   .

Probably of particular interest to the readership here is:

1#   'Strategy Matrix for Migration of Locomotives to Carbon Neutral Operating Regime' included on page 14 of Folio:1:g4 Germinal Material

2#   Part 3: Looking Forward   A vision of a possible future:
Down by the heliostats1 early in the morning.
     included on page 44 of Folio:1:g4 Germinal Material

Hope you enjoy all this.   W.Shawn Gray

[oltmannd]

TrainManTy

Wow. What a fascinating read -- thanks for sharing it!

I'm not going to stick my neck out and speculate about industry economics, electrification, or the role of technology, but I will punch one hole in your narrative.

The original brake valves from when the cars were built in the first part of the century were mostly still in place and the train still carried an ancient end of train device they called FRED.  Charlie had no idea why they called them FRED.  Maybe it was the name of the inventor?  An old head had told him a story about a rather vulgar acronym.  That couldn't be right.  Railroaders didn't use that kind of language.

From my experience in the industry, that's one thing that will never change. 

Yeah, that might be the LEAST credible thing in there!  

[rluke]

I had read that the F in FRED stood for Flashing Rich

[PNWRMNM]

Don,

Your vision looks credible to me, particularly the line improvements driven by increasing traffic and a need for speed.

The most inventive, and perhaps least likely, I thought was the flying squads. I agree something like them are necessary for one person crew but I wonder about "land anywhere" access in the mountains.

Mac McCulloch

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I've also heard that FRED is a subtle insult from Brotherhood members directed at the president of the UTU at the time.

[dakotafred]

The proper name, as I understood it, was Rear-End Device, or RED. The 'F' got added to the acronym by trainmen unhappy with the demise of the caboose.

I was never fond of the new acronym, myself.

[jeffhergert]

Zug, we use EOT or FRED.  I've read that some places call the head end box Mary, but I've never heard that around my area.

From what I've read in Railway Age, ECP braking seems to be on the back burner.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that change in the future.

I don't think unit grain trains will go away.  The push is on for 110 car trains.  They will still load 75 cars now, but I think the time will come when 100 cars will be the minimum.  I wouldn't be surprised to see fewer loading elevators but with 120 or even 150 car capacity.

Some of the things are already here.  Timetables and General Orders are already downloadable.  I haven't joined the 21st century yet, I still prefer paper but wouldn't be surprised that before I retire the company will issue electronic devices and go that route.  All that stuff is now posted in electronic friendly form.  Almost to the point that it's harder sometimes to print the stuff out.  

I don't doubt that some of things you predict will happen.  I won't be out here in 2040.  In a way, I'm kind of glad.  Although the 13000 foot trains we are running would be a lot easier with ECP.  Well maybe, they'll probably still not want you to use air.  Uses too much fuel.

Jeff   

[tree68]

Flashing Rear End Device

That's what we call ours.  All it does is hang on the coupler and flash.  

Besides, "FRED" has a lot more "personality" than "EOTD" or "Marker" when I'm showing the plush version to kids...

[zugmann]

I don't think I ever heard a railroader refer to the blinkey boxes as FREDs.

I've only ever heard them called markers. Or if someone wants to be fancy:  EOTD.

I'll (hopefully) still be working in 2040, so we'll see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Wow. What a fascinating read -- thanks for sharing it!

I'm not going to stick my neck out and speculate about industry economics, electrification, or the role of technology, but I will punch one hole in your narrative.

The original brake valves from when the cars were built in the first part of the century were mostly still in place and the train still carried an ancient end of train device they called FRED.  Charlie had no idea why they called them FRED.  Maybe it was the name of the inventor?  An old head had told him a story about a rather vulgar acronym.  That couldn't be right.  Railroaders didn't use that kind of language.

From my experience in the industry, that's one thing that will never change. 

[oltmannd]

I took a stab at the answer to that equation in my blog.  Wrote a not-as-short-as-it-should-be story.  Take a look and tell me where I'm all wet!

Or, take a stab at it yourself!

(I'm not quitting my day job any time soon....)