CandOforprogress2I was looking for Intermodal Container Hump yards in Europe as to what CSX is doing with "stacker cranes' in North Baltimore OH and i stumbled on to this patent.Since this was in 2002 I would assume that some railroad would steal all or part of Krafts Ideas. However since that time Class Ones have closed or downgraded humps notable is CSX Frontier Hump in Buffalo and NS Buckeye yard in Columbus OH.
http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/news/norfolk-southernnamesitslargestfreighttrainclassificationyardinh.html
- Paul North.
Having spent my career at a gravity classification yard, I see nothing this operation can do that we couldn't do with what we had, nor would I see justifying the expense of modifying an existing yard to handle cars this way. A yard like ours, when functioning the way it should, is a thing of beauty. And ours, as anachronistic as it was (is), was the best of all at things like specialized handling of priority cars.As for building a new yard like this from the ground up...I strongly suspect that it ain't gonna happen.I would have serious concerns about the safety aspect of conducting outbound inspections, repairs, etc., on a classification track, or with taking a track out of service for as long as such operations would take. Somebody doesn't seem to realize that cassification tracks aren't intended to be for storage or inspection. They are tools to be used to sort cars.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Victrola1Is it less expensive and time consuming to shift containers of mechandise from car to car than to classify boxcars?
It isn't a matter of which is more inexpensive or time consuming. Carriers have to deal with what shippers are shipping. If they are shipping containers/trailers you have to develop a strategy to 'switch' containers to make a profitable service. If they ship box cars you have to have a strategy to switch car loads to make the service profitable. You have to service the customers desires and needs.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Is it less expensive and time consuming to shift containers of mechandise from car to car than to classify boxcars?
schlimm Question. The trend has been to move away from loose-car railroading. Wouldn't that make hump yards less relevant?
Question. The trend has been to move away from loose-car railroading. Wouldn't that make hump yards less relevant?
There's still a lot of it out there.
I would opine that the concept being presented in the patent, etc, amounts to pre-blocking an entire train for its entire trip. This is as opposed to simply placing cars for a given interim destination together to be further sorted there.
The question becomes what is saved by doing all the sorting at an originating hump rather than sorting again at the intermediate points as needed.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I was looking for Intermodal Container Hump yards in Europe as to what CSX is doing with "stacker cranes' in North Baltimore OH and i stumbled on to this patent.Since this was in 2002 I would assume that some railroad would steal all or part of Krafts Ideas. However since that time Class Ones have closed or downgraded humps notable is CSX Frontier Hump in Buffalo and NS Buckeye yard in Columbus OH.
"Network intermodal battles trucks - European railways speed intermodal service with hump yards by Kraft, Edwin R. Chip, from Trains, January 2005p. 28 [ europe france intermodal yard ]"
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Hagerstown Daily Mail, March 13, 1975
Boy, 14, Has Plans to Save Two PC Rail Lines in State
UNION BRIDGE, Md. (AP) - Edwin R. Kraft's enthusiasm for railroads rivals that of the 19th Century tycoons. And while his scope is limited to a small system instead of the entire continent, he believes the financial potential of railroads remains sound. Specifically, he wants to save two Penn-Central Railroad lines in Maryland, an unusual proposition considering the company's difficulties. But Kraft is equally interesting. Chip, as he is better known, is 14 years old. He has the same philosophy of free enterprise that enabled the old tycoons to expand their lines and make millions. With proper management, Chip thinks, the railroads could be a "good deal" for investors in 1975.
"I'm not even considering subsidy," he says in reference to a possible take-over by the federally operated Consolidated Rail system. In fact Chip says the basic flaw with modern railroads is they are set up "for long, fast trains." This includes union agreements, management philosophy, engine design and the entire operating approach. He expects financial success by accommodating short runs with fewer cars.
The first step of the dream company, the York-Frederick-Baltimore Railroad, would be to acquire the 59 miles of Penn Central track between York, Pa., and Frederick, which he says is in "very bad shape." To finance repairs he would purchase track in better shape between York and Baltimore, hoping that line would turn a profit. His planning and investigating has been thorough. Chip has explored costs of new railroad ties, rehabilitation standards of the U.S. Railway Association, possible clients and the availability of loans under the provisions of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973. His attempts have been taken seriously.
"I look at the mail and there are all these letters from Senator Beall, the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission," says Chip's father, Edwin E. Kraft. "I don't think they realize he's only 14 years old."
But Chip doesn't let his age discourage him. Nor does he see as insurmountable the $1.1 million lump sum he estimates is needed to get things running. Even should the company get a repurchase and rehabilitation loan, Chip says, it would need to put up 30 per cent of the money, or about $330,000. So he has initiated a campaign through letters to the local newspapers to stir public interest in saving the railroads. So far nobody has responded.
"It's hard to believe," Chip says, but then reflects, "It's human nature not to jump on the bandwagon until it's going."
Chip's parents are another reality he has to deal with. They don't intend to let his plans get off the drawing board—not yet. But Chip's venture is more a dedication to saving the railroads than becoming a financial wonder boy. His feelings have been nurtured "probably since I was about one year old." They include memories of a model railroad, walks down the Western Maryland Railroad tracks and talks with old-timers in Union Bridge. Now Kraft hopes the lines will be supported because he's afraid that "if the lines are ever abandoned, they won't come back."
Paul_D_North_Jr Railroading's hidden half: the yard, part 2
Railroading's hidden half: the yard, part 2
Excerpt from The Yard: Railroading's Hidden Half by Edwin Kraft, Trains, July 2002
New ideas for new yards are abundant. Original—even radical—approaches have been successfully applied on European, Japanese, and South African railroads. North American railroads, by contrast, have made only incremental changes to the design and operation of yards, in order to meet narrow, specific goals: reduce costs, add processing capacity, build more blocks to eliminate intermediate classifications.
One simple way to boost yard capacity is to add another set of retarders. Most hump yards have only two sets: master and group retarders. A third set of tangent point retarders at the entrance to each classification track enables a higher speed to be maintained through the switching area, and reduces the likelihood of cars catching up to one another or being misrouted. Tangent retarders also allow cars to be spaced closer together, increasing hump capacity.
An even better solution is to install Dowty retarders (Figure 9). These retarders, named for the British company that first developed them, look like mushrooms springing up next to the rails. A Dowty retarder consists of a hydraulic piston-and-cylinder so positioned that a wheel flange depresses the piston as the car passes over. A valve in the retarder slams shut if the car's speed exceeds a preset value, forcing hydraulic fluid through a narrow orifice. That resists the downward pressure of the wheel and slows the car. If the car is moving slower than the preset speed, the valve remains open so the cylinder compresses without resistance. A closely related design, the spiral retarder, works on the same principal. Spiral retarders are more powerful but also more expensive.
For the highest hump capacity, precisely uniform speeds must be maintained throughout the switching area. A special variation of the Dowty retarder actually speeds the car up, for just this purpose. A boost is applied if a car is moving slower than the target speed; a retarding force if a car's speed is too high. Although Dowty retarders are self-contained, boosters require an external power supply. The first boosters, installed at British Rail's Tinsley Yard, used power supplied by hydraulic lines. These lines proved leaky and maintenance-prone, and were easily damaged in derailments. A newer design, powered by compressed air, is environmentally friendly and was installed at Spoornet's yard at Sentrarand, South Africa. The boosters at Sentrarand have been operating successfully for more than two decades.
A critical goal for yards is to eliminate the bottleneck flat-switching at the trim end. Herringbones are a special track arrangement for doing just that. As shown in Figure 9, Herringbones consist of a group of yard tracks constructed in sets of three or more. A central running track is connected to outside classification tracks by means of crossovers. These crossovers divide the outside tracks into "pockets" for receiving and storing blocks of cars. During classification, cars roll down the center running track until they reach the appropriate crossover. At that point, they are diverted into the side-pocket classification track. A car-stopper prevents cars from running out the end of each pocket. Once all the cars for the outbound train have been collected, the car-stoppers are retracted. A locomotive then backs into the blocks of cars until they are coupled together.
If a train consists of more blocks than the herringbone track has pockets, it may be necessary to double into an additional track to collect the remaining blocks. Although the concept dates at least to 1912, it was strongly advocated in a December 1957 Trains article by George Billmeyer ["The Trainmaker ... Yard of the Future?]. Herringbones were actually built in 1968 at Koriyama yard in Japan, and in 1975 at Sentrarand. Only the Sentrarand herringbones are still in use today.
In practice, the use of herringbones is not as simple as the design might suggest, which is part of the reason they've not been installed in many yards. A significant difficulty is maintaining proper spacing between cars throughout the entire length of the long central running track.
Too much retardation would cause cars to stop short. Too little retardation would either send cars crashing into standing cars, or rolling out the far end. Should a fast car catch up to a slower one in front of it, the faster car would be misrouted.
Another drawback of the herringbone design is cost. Since the central running track must be kept clear, it cannot be used for classifying cars. Thus, to have 200-car holding capacity, nearly 300 cars of track length must be built. Herringbone yards must be equipped with power switches, Dowty retarders, and car stoppers, all of which adds to their cost. The only way to justify the enormous capital investment of herringbone tracks is to keep them in constant use building trains, because they are too costly to be used only as storage tracks. This need for rapid turnover is not compatible with the once-a-day train departure policy typical of North American railroad operations. The herringbone yard, in sum, offers only a partial solution to the yard problem.
The yard presented in Figure 8 incorporates history, practice, and theory to become the efficient, fast, inexpensive, yard of the future. It possesses the efficiency of a hump yard, but consists of only a single body of tracks, like a flat yard. Any track can be used for any purpose, unlike either today's yards, which are subdivided into separate receiving, classification and departure areas, or the herringbone yard, with its empty central running tracks. Its 8000 to 10,000-foot tracks are longer than those used in a traditional hump yard, long enough to hold a complete train and to eliminate the need to double or triple departing trains. Dowty retarders, spaced throughout the entire length of the classification tracks, can be used to control car speeds and ensure all cars roll to a safe coupling at the ends of each track.
To process cars faster, the flat-switching that takes place at the trim end of today's yards is replaced with additional humping. Cars from an inbound train are pulled back from the classification tracks by way of the escape tracks, then onto one of the dual hump-lead tracks, where they are shoved over the hump in the usual fashion. The cars are then repeatedly pulled out of the classification yard and re-humped to sort them behind other cars already in the yard, using a multiple stage switching technique called triangular sorting. Using this process, a train comprised of several blocks can be assembled so every block is in proper sequence ready for departure. The train is built ready-to-go on a single classification track without the need for a trim-end switcher. Figure 10 shows how a six-block train can be built using only three tracks.
(The techniques presented summarize two pending U.S. patent applications of the author's that show how multiple-stage sorting techniques can be used to precisely control the selection of cars placed on outbound trains, and detail how yard time that's currently wasted can be used to perform mechanical inspection and repairs.)
If triangular sorting is used, each car must be humped two or three times, and more than half the available hump time is consumed by second-stage sorting. But because only a few tracks in the yard are used during second-stage sorting, both hump leads can work at the same time, boosting hump capacity by at least 50%. Since a hump operation should proceed faster than the trim end switching it replaces, overall yard costs can actually be reduced. (Transferring more work to the hump would pose no inherent difficulties, provided the hump has been built with enough capacity to absorb the intended workload.) With multiple stage sorting, fewer classification tracks are needed. Because each track can hold more than one block, a multiple stage yard with only 15-20 long tracks could build as many blocks as a conventional 64-track yard.
By using the hump instead of flat-switching for final train assembly, yardmasters can make last-minute decisions on the exact composition of an outbound train, regardless of the order in which the cars arrived or were processed in the yard--flexibility current yards don't have. Priority cars with tight schedules will always have first access to an outbound train's available capacity, eliminating delays from missed connections, while lower priority cars that may have to be bumped from an outbound train can be effortlessly diverted into other classification tracks.
Additionally, classification tracks not receiving cars from the hump during a second-stage sort can be turned over to mechanical forces for car inspection and repair. For easier access, cart paths are built between every track in the yard, with enough room for vehicles carrying tools and materials to repair cars, without having to switch cars out of trains. Cars with very serious defects can still be removed and sent to the car shop during the second-stage sort. Cart paths would also grant easier access to engineering forces maintaining switches and retarder systems in the yard.
This ability to inspect and repair cars on classification tracks demands a radical change in yard operating philosophy. Newly arrived trains can be humped immediately upon arrival, as soon as the air brakes are bled off, without needing to wait for inspection. Using the escape tracks, the road power from an arriving train can cut off and move to the enginehouse without interfering with hump operations. Cars can be inspected anytime before the final sort. By eliminating time now spent in the arrival and departure yards, average yard times are reduced by 4-8 hours, and scheduled connections as tight as one hour can conceivably be made.
When trains are built at hump yards with the cars sequenced in proper order, less time is spent breaking down blocks of cars for customers at smaller satellite yards near the customer's loading dock. Switching crews based at the satellite yards can then use time they would have spent sorting arriving cars and instead pre-classify cars headed back to the hump yard--a process called pre-blocking. If local crews know which blocks will combine on which tracks at the hump yard, they can pre-classify blocks of cars to bypass the first-stage sort.
Partial pre-blocking increases the proportion of hump time spent in second-stage sorting, where both hump leads are able to work concurrently. This has a multiplier effect on yard processing capacity. For every car pre-blocked, the capacity of a multiple-stage yard increases by an even greater amount. The whole inbound train does not need to be pre-blocked: if only those tracks having the most cars were pre-classified, hump workload would still be reduced by a considerable amount.
To compensate for the delays associated with yard handling and to guarantee connections, railroads pad their schedules. While this may improve the reliability of an individual shipment, padding schedules across the board will not fundamentally improve performance, since cars are forced to sit in yards longer, which impedes the yard's processing efficiency. Poor car utilization doesn't necessarily reflect poor yard performance, either. Other factors that have nothing to do with yards can slow round-trip times, such as: car loading and unloading times, unpredictability and unevenness of customer demand for equipment, and empty car distribution practices. For a typical manifest move, 50% of the cost is yard-related. A more efficient carload handling system could cut delivery times and yard costs, and allow railroads to win back business by tailoring their transportation product to individual customer needs.
Railroads like to compare the high costs of moving carload traffic to the lower cost of unit-train moves. But the comparison really should be between the cost of moving merchandise freight in a boxcar or a truck trailer. For most carload shippers, the cost of transportation is only one factor in the decision to ship by rail or truck. Equally important are the logistics associated with loading and unloading, material handling costs, overall transit time, and the cost of inventory tied up in a transportation move. For most shippers, these decisions are already made: it's called a truck. Wishing isn't going to put truck freight back into a boxcar, but better yards might.
EDWIN R. "CHIP" KRAFT has held positions in finance, planning, and information technology at several railroads. He holds a Ph.D. in systems engineering from the University of Pennsylvania. As director-network analysis at Amtrak Mail & Express, Dr. Kraft worked full-time on attracting premium traffic back to rail. He is employed by rail consulting firm Reebie Associates, where his focus has been development of rail-costing models.
So now that we have the patent detailed in the first post, I would like to hear people’s opinions of it. Will the railroad industry adopt this concept for more efficient classification yards? If not, why not?
Is the current method of classification switching the best method?
I see that C&O has posted the actual patent replacing the original link. The patent is going to take a bit of study to absorb.
SALfan: You're OK . . .
Railroading's hidden half: the yard, part 1 - what yards do and how they work, by Kraft, Edwin, from Trains June 2002 p. 46
Railroading's hidden half: the yard, part 2 - yards of the future by Kraft, Edwin, from Trains July 2002 p. 36 [operation yard ]
Network intermodal battles trucks - European railways speed intermodal service with hump yards by Kraft, Edwin R. Chip, from Trains, January 2005 p. 28 [ europe france intermodal yard ]
Didn't TRAINS have an article about this type of yard at some point? I seem to remember it. Of course, I could be hallucinating again.
It would be most interesting to see a detailed explanation of this system. I would like to see the continuously sustainable multi-stage sorting process. I wonder if by chance this system includes a transfer table action to shift cars from one classification track to another; as opposed to a yard lead feeding into multiple classification tracks.
Former employee of my carrier. Also has other Patents.
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/edwin-r-kraft
https://www.google.com/patents/US6418854
So again in plain english how is this different then say Selkirk or Chicago Belt Railway?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.