My defunct intermodal idea

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

It sounds like a cool idea. It reminds me of a military vehicle I saw on TLC show last night. It is 4 axles with 8 wheel drive and it loads and unload stuff through a flat rack container system. It is designed for quick load and unload logistical support.

I

Sounds like an aircraft pallet loader. Tilts at either end, has rollers on the deck and locking rails. Load pallets on the deck and slide them on the rollers into the rails and lock them down. Drive out to the plane, level with the ramp, which also has rollers, tilt and unlock. Slide the pallets onto the plane, lock into rails and go. Standard 6x6 metal pallets used througout the military

[Paul Milenkovic]

I heard the concept called "Stedman" gear on another thread. The Canadian Pacific tried something along those lines. The side-transfer system is discussed in Integral Train Systems, Kalmbach Publishing. I have searched really hard on the Web and haven't turned up much. I thought Hyster had something to do with it, but can't find anything on their page.

The flatcar/spinecar is the passive part of the system. It has guides that allow the container to slide sideways, and it has these angle irons that pivot up and lock to keep the container in place once it is on. The truck trailer is the active part. It has hydraulic feet to raise the truck flatbed to match the guides on the railcar, and it has these hydraulic-powered arms that can either push or pull to drag the container over the guides.

I am thinking it is a cousin to Dumpster. We talk about a Dumpster as a generic garbage bin, but a Dumpster is a component in a material handling system from Hyster involving a container (the Dumpster proper) and a system for loading and unloading it from a flatbed truck.

I imagine that the side transfer system requires some skill on the part of the truck driver to properly position the truck bed for the transfer. But truck drivers handle Dumpsters all of the time, and I don't see Dumpsters handled with big overhead cranes or oversized front loader/carriers.

Who should have tried this was Amtrak when they were doing their head-end LCL service. Come to think of it, the idea of switching cars on an off a passenger train isn't that great in terms of tying up the train with passengers on it in a yard short of the station. Airlines handle head end traffic all the time, and it is all in containers in the belly of the jet, and the passengers would hardly know this is going on. I think that if Amtrak did such a thing it should have been all in containers and handled from the passenger embarkation point -- just ... like .... a jet.

[oltmannd]

I remember long ago, an article in Trains by John Kneiling pitching a "slide on - slide off" containerized frt system. Apparently it was tried in Great Britian somewhere. He built a whole business model around the technology. Somebody have old Trains from the late 60s to mid 70s?

[Anonymous]

Good news and bad news for you....

The bad news is that subject line is wrong. Yyour defunct idea isn't really defunct.

Last year at the Intermodal Assoc. of North American Annual Confernce, a person from Sweden gave a presentation on exactly what you are talking about.

They were using "Swap Body" equipment to do self-unloading containers. They call their trucks Lorres, similar to the British and have what they call "self discharging Lorries" which can winch a container onto and off of a train.

They operate this on light volume lines, where, like you suggested, there isn't enough volume to justify a terminal, but where they want local service. See the link below regarding an example of this for grain hoppers.

They felt that they could use the train crew to swap out the containers at local sidings.

http://ex-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00000127/01/Exarb_LT,_M_Kihlstr%C3%B6m,_2003-6.pdf

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Thanks for the advice Dave,

But in all honesty, I gave up on the idea a long time ago it was a sophmoric/quixotic idea and Mark's criticisms articulated ideas that let me to calling the idea defunct.

The only reason I posted it was, we haven't seemed to have a good intermodal conversation as of late and seeing all those trucks blocking the highways leads me to think we need to start looking for better alternatives.

Thanks again though,

Gabe

Gabe,

I wouldn't necessarily give up on the idea per se, but ask yourself if it can evolve into something that may have merit in the current supply chain? I do believe Mark's criticisms have validity, but that doesn't necessarily rule it out entirely.

What you have touched upon is the niche potential in the shorthaul intermodal lanes, currently dominated entirely by trucks. That doesn't mean that a shortline parallel to the truck lanes cannot compete for intermodal traffic between the factory and the intermodal terminal. A while back the Southern railroad incorporated the idea of direct factory loading of containers on flatcars. They put two 20' containers on a 60' flatcar, container doors facing into the center of the car, and using the middle part of the car as the loading platform. They were able to compete on a price basis with trucks, until the service was discontinued when the Norfolk & Western merger was initiated.

I came up with an idea of doing the same thing, but using the base frame of an articulated auto carrier as an articulated flatcar of sufficient length to allow two 40' + containers to be loaded simultaneously at a typical boxcar loading dock. A shortline could offer a price advantage over truckers using this concept, assuming the shortline had access to the Class I intermodal terminal where the containers would be transfered to a standard double stack well car from the flatcar by the top lift tractors. It also assumed that time constraints were not an issue. The concept would keep trucks off congested city streets and suberban highways from point of origin to the intermodal terminal. It could be used for domestic containers as well, and offers the possibility of "overloading" a container by weight if shipped from a state with miminal highway weight limits to a state with maximum highway weight limits.

What I'm trying to say is don't discount innovations in potential niche markets even if the initial idea comes to a dead end. You just need to allow ideas to adapt and evolve until you come across a viable niche.

[gabe]

Thanks for the advice Dave,

But in all honesty, I gave up on the idea a long time ago it was a sophmoric/quixotic idea and Mark's criticisms articulated ideas that let me to calling the idea defunct.

The only reason I posted it was, we haven't seemed to have a good intermodal conversation as of late and seeing all those trucks blocking the highways leads me to think we need to start looking for better alternatives.

Thanks again though,

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Gabe,

Let me rephrase my response, since I don't want to discourage you from developing viable ideas for the railroad industry. My points of advice are these:

1. Normally, if you are successful in presenting an idea to a corporation and they make an offer, an attorney would advise you to tie your royalties to per unit production rather than a single lump sum up front, but I would suggest that if you get that far with a potential rail client take your royalty up front in a lump sum and walk away. Do not risk losing any royalties due to foot dragging on the part of the railroad.

2. Try pitching your idea to relatively new participants in the rail industry. Third party intermodal firms, trucking companies who are looking into shipping via rail intermodal, Class II or III raillines who are expanding market range, or large established rail shippers who may own their own railcars or are tending in that direction are a good start. Avoid trying to sell to any of the current Class I's or to TTX, they'll just screw you over.

3. You might also contact private and public intermodal terminal operators who contract out for services and have dealings with smaller intermodal markets. If you have access to investment capital and can get some favorable responses to your idea from terminal operators, you might consider setting up your own production and/or service entity to enhance production of your idea.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Save your transportation creativity for the trucking or barge industries, you'll reap more of the deserved awards.

Barges and creativity.......I was unaware of the great technological breakthroughs that have been made in the shallow draft maritime industry.

What I am stating is that the trucking and maritime industries are more receptive and supportive of new concepts from outsiders. The "great technological breakthroughs" in the barging industries are admittedly rather mundane, but they do follow through on implimenting viable ideas in an expedient fashion, thus if you or anyone has an idea that might benefit them, you are more likely to be benefitted in a reciprocal sense than if you offered a new idea to the railroad industry.

I would say that the maritime industry and RRs about about the same in that regard. Advances in shipbuilding, such as those in RRs that improve efficiency and economy are approached in much the same manner...cost to incorporate versus cost of not doing so or potential savings/profit of doing so. Ships aren't generally interchanged, and as such virtually no two are exactly alike. Many of the improvements were not done as a result of good nature or profitablity (other than litigation) but as a result of regulation, ie double hulled tankers. Maritime companies flag their ships for Panama or Liberia to avoid the safety/crew/eco requirments required of US and many European flags, unless they have no choice. They suffer from the same inertia as RRs.

I can't speak for the major ocean carriers, I can only expound on my own experiences with certain domestic maritime outfits. I do know that you may see a resumption of the LASH concept in maritime lanes running between China and the Pacific Northwest. There is so much potential for inland to inland trade in those lanes ie. bypassing expensive and congested deep draft ports on both coasts by running direct between inland barge ports using LA***echnology.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Save your transportation creativity for the trucking or barge industries, you'll reap more of the deserved awards.

Barges and creativity.......I was unaware of the great technological breakthroughs that have been made in the shallow draft maritime industry.

What I am stating is that the trucking and maritime industries are more receptive and supportive of new concepts from outsiders. The "great technological breakthroughs" in the barging industries are admittedly rather mundane, but they do follow through on implimenting viable ideas in an expedient fashion, thus if you or anyone has an idea that might benefit them, you are more likely to be benefitted in a reciprocal sense than if you offered a new idea to the railroad industry.

I would say that the maritime industry and RRs about about the same in that regard. Advances in shipbuilding, such as those in RRs that improve efficiency and economy are approached in much the same manner...cost to incorporate versus cost of not doing so or potential savings/profit of doing so. Ships aren't generally interchanged, and as such virtually no two are exactly alike. Many of the improvements were not done as a result of good nature or profitablity (other than litigation) but as a result of regulation, ie double hulled tankers. Maritime companies flag their ships for Panama or Liberia to avoid the safety/crew/eco requirments required of US and many European flags, unless they have no choice. They suffer from the same inertia as RRs.

[gabe]

After about the third time, Randy, you should have just painted a big bulls eye on the bridge. Very funny.

[Randy Stahl]

In Milwaukee they just did away with the self unloading feature... They raised the 6th street viaduct to clear double stacks. About once a year they tried to run a stack train through the depot to test the feature.
Randy

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Save your transportation creativity for the trucking or barge industries, you'll reap more of the deserved awards.

Barges and creativity.......I was unaware of the great technological breakthroughs that have been made in the shallow draft maritime industry.

What I am stating is that the trucking and maritime industries are more receptive and supportive of new concepts from outsiders. The "great technological breakthroughs" in the barging industries are admittedly rather mundane, but they do follow through on implimenting viable ideas in an expedient fashion, thus if you or anyone has an idea that might benefit them, you are more likely to be benefitted in a reciprocal sense than if you offered a new idea to the railroad industry.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Save your transportation creativity for the trucking or barge industries, you'll reap more of the deserved awards.

Barges and creativity.......I was unaware of the great technological breakthroughs that have been made in the shallow draft maritime industry.

[Anonymous]

Gabe,

I think part of the problem is that there are other inventions already in place to take care of such a need (if it should ever become viable). Items such as the Swing-Thru, a trailer mounted container transfer machine which can load or unload containers between railcars (even double stacks) and container chassis, can accomplish your aim without the need for new capital investment in specialized railcars.

Trust me on this one, trying to get the railroads to adopt to newer, more efficient railcars will end up taking more time to come to fruition than the typical 17 year patent timeframe. Even if your idea is taken up by a railroad or a railcar maker, they will only sit on the concept until your royalty period is up, and they'll leave you with nothing to show for it. Don't waste your time trying to work with the rail industry, they're all a bunch of monopolistic crooks for the most part. Save your transportation creativity for the trucking or barge industries, you'll reap more of the deserved awards.

[Junctionfan]

It sounds like a cool idea. It reminds me of a military vehicle I saw on TLC show last night. It is 4 axles with 8 wheel drive and it loads and unload stuff through a flat rack container system. It is designed for quick load and unload logistical support.

I

[gabe]

About seven years ago, I had an idea concerning intermodal rail cars. Because I was 21 at the time and knew everything, I decided that I had better write up the idea and send it to everyone before I turned a little older and no longer knew everything. My idea was a self-unloading intermodal railcar. Ergo, you didn't need an intermodal facility to use it.

I lived near Litchfield Illinois (a small but fairly industrial town) at the time. I noticed there were at least 20-30 intermodal containers per day trucked into Litchfield. My thought was that there were 1000s of towns like Litchfield and that when intermodal trains were made up on the East or West Coast, they could group the trailers going to particular towns together, and when an Intermodal train got to the intermodal yard, a local could have a run of seven-to-ten towns like Litchfield and drop off the containers--allowing trains to capture a larger share of intermodal revenue from truckers.

I even built a HO scale - working model of the car. It is pretty neat. All you need is a siding that a tractor-trailer can pull next to. I wrote up my proposal and sent it off to every railroad that I could think of in order to get them to invest in my idea. For years, I wondered why I never got a reply.

Alas, I realize now that the bulk concept of intermodal doesn't fit well with my idea and the last thing railroads want is more locals clogging up capacity. Still, it seems as though my idea would allow shortlines and regionals--who often serve towns like Litchfield and don't have the same capacity problems--to get into the intermodal game.

I am sure there is a reason why my logic is faulty, but don't see it. Don't intermodal trailors have to be specifically loaded onto trains on the east and west coast anyway? Does anyone want to tell me why my idea doesn't work?

My train set makes a lot of revenue off the idea though. Shippers love it.

Thanks
Gabe