There is an article in the Rail Group News stating that the Railrunner intermodal system is going to be started on the railways in South Africa. I'm sorry that my computer skills are not good enough to post a link, but it just appeared this morning, so a Goggle search should find it.This is the very same system as the Triple Crown system that was recently ended on NS except for one corridor. My question is this; Why would it work over there, but not over here?
A very good reason. First, it does work in the USA, but the economics seem to be right now for just one corredor.. It may rebound back in the future.
Clearances in South Africa, with the whole system at 3'-6" gauge, do not permit double-stacking containers. It is really the economics of double-stack containers that has resulted in curtailing of Triple Crown. And soon all NS intermodal corridors will be capable of double stack trains.
Here's your link.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/freight/railrunner-intermodal-system-heads-for-south-africa.html
Also, the catenary and tunnels mean double-stack is very unlikely in the future. The railroad system is a government monopoly and its truck subsidiary is part of it. The only four-lane intercity highway, if my memory is corect, is that between Johannesburg and Praetoria.
The railroads are all Cape Gauge (4'2"). Don't think stacking is possible - catenary not withstanding.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Cape gauge is actually 3' 6", same as Newfoundland, Queensland, Western Australia and parts of East Africa.
Guys, RailRunner is SINGLE stack container over a flatbed or spine road chassis equipped with the sort of special running gear RoadRailers use. It is not double-stack, and no one familiar with vehicle dynamics would suggest it be (at least not in North America, let alone on Cape gauge or even with ingenious Brazilians on metre gauge).
Note that this is a container system and NOT the RoadRailer/Triple Crown setup, which to my knowledge uses van trailers. As it is based on underframes that ride completely above the highway dual bogies, it is not a 'well' setup and therefore couldn't be reliably double-stacked in a great many places even if stability concerns permitted.
The great potential advantage of using RailRunner (which was not a commercial or operating success here) is that all the handling advantages of containers are present, but the loaded 'cars' can also be treated as chassis and quickly converted to run as road transport. I presume this has been covered in some of the current reportage.
RoadRailers and presumably the spine chassis used in RailRunner would be heavier than conventional road trailers because of the need for a beefed-up frame for the greater forces involved in train operation. Unless you're shipping a lot of stuff that cubes out first, this can be a capacity limitation on a public roadway.
What are the weight limits on South African roads? Are the limits higher than in the United States?
The lower the gross weight limit the more tare weight reduces net. Higher road weight limits would make a heavier, stronger chasis on a railrunner unit economical.
Nobody wrote that Roadrailer, South African or anywhere else, was or is double-stack, and nobody wrote that the gauge was anything but 42 inches, three-feet-six-inches. And yes it was used elsewhere in the British colonies.
From observations from my visits, the load limits on South African roads are not much different than in the USA, with heavy trucks and cab with trialers, but neve saw a "double-bottom" configuration on their roads. Without any double-stack intermodal to compete, and wihtout interstate divideed highways throughout the country, Roadrailer should be a commercial success in SA. Again, nearly all main lines are electrified.
overallThis is the very same system as the Triple Crown system that was recently ended on NS except for one corridor. My question is this; Why would it work over there, but not over here?
RoadRailer did work in North America. It just came in 2nd to double stack. For several reasons.
So the US, Canada and Mexico have gone with their most efficient system, double stack containers. In South Africa things may be different and the best usable system will be similar to RoadRailer.
CSSHEGEWISCH Cape gauge is actually 3' 6", same as Newfoundland, Queensland, Western Australia and parts of East Africa.
Argh! I knew that. I was just there. 42". (Memo to self : Gotta think first, type later....)
Why not here? This seems like a great idea of not needed expensive lifts and cranes
Buslist Here's your link. http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/freight/railrunner-intermodal-system-heads-for-south-africa.html
And from the link; Here is a copy of what it looks like:
Maybe it is just me, but it sure seems to resemble the Road Railer concists that used to run through here, enroute to, and from their yard in Ft.Worth area (Alliance Yard(?)
Rather than using an entire OTR Trailer as a 'unit'; they seem to use a wheeled chassis, and an overseas container. The train connections seem to be on the individual chassis in this case,while there is a set of idler rail wheels that connect the train to its power ?
samfp1943Rather than using an entire OTR Trailer as a 'unit'; they seem to use a wheeled chassis, and an overseas container. The train connections seem to be on the individual chassis in this case,while there is a set of idler rail wheels that connect the train to its power ?
Is there some conspiracy that keeps people from reading anything I posted in this thread? (Or perhaps Googling "RailRunner" and seeing what appears?)
RME samfp1943 Rather than using an entire OTR Trailer as a 'unit'; they seem to use a wheeled chassis, and an overseas container. The train connections seem to be on the individual chassis in this case,while there is a set of idler rail wheels that connect the train to its power ? Is there some conspiracy that keeps people from reading anything I posted in this thread?
samfp1943 Rather than using an entire OTR Trailer as a 'unit'; they seem to use a wheeled chassis, and an overseas container. The train connections seem to be on the individual chassis in this case,while there is a set of idler rail wheels that connect the train to its power ?
Is there some conspiracy that keeps people from reading anything I posted in this thread?
..some of us have that problem in every thread..."
I would tend to agree, some do, and some don't...
Buslist posted a link that provided quite a bit of information on the subject...I simply felt that some more information, and a photo would provide additional information on the subject. There are a few of us around here who have our roots in the road transportation side of the industry, and have personal intertests in things on the railroad side, as well. When the two interests intersect, we enjoy the topics even more.
As to the statement of RME's about the failure of Road-Railer to be a commercial success. I would say it was not a complete flop, and did enjoy some limited success in areas where it was employed.
It was a 'child' of the North American Van Lines Corp. It certainly showed enough success that the NS Corp thought enough of it to buy their operations; over twenty years ago(?)
Where it was utilized [ in segments of the J.I.T./ Automotive Industry] it functioned for over twenty-five years. I would venture to say, IF it had not made money for NSC. they would have dropped it immediately(?)
Was it eventually dropped because of a lack of intense marketing; or a change in corporate stratagies?
Did the other railroads stay away from it because it belonged to Norfolk Southern Corp?
I would opine that RoadRailer faded out in part because it was a non-standard technology that was neither fish nor fowl. The trailers were heavy, which ate up capacity, and they required specialized handling for railroad operations.
The only consistent business for RoadRailers, on both NS and CSX, was auto parts, as mentioned above.
samfp1943 Was it eventually dropped because of a lack of intense marketing; or a change in corporate stratagies?
It made money, but not enough to afford to replace the equipment once it reached the end of it's life.
Basically, NS can make a greater profit in carrying the same traffic in double-stack container trains. When Triple Crown was launched, double-stacking could only run on a very limited number of NS lines, while today the operation is mainline system-wide.
samfp1943 As to the statement of RME's about the failure of Road-Railer to be a commercial success. I would say it was not a complete flop, and did enjoy some limited success in areas where it was employed.
Ye Gods, and STILL not listening!
Two things here.
"RoadRailer" is a system of specially-reinforced van trailers that can be operated over railroad tracks as 'trains' of connected vehicles. The original version had special rail wheels on every trailer and a special hitch supporting the nose of the following trailer on the sill of the preceding one. A special vehicle or connection was needed for the nose of the first trailer. The 'latter' version puts special three-piece truck connections between the individual trailers, reducing the vans' tare weight but requiring either that traffic be 'balanced' in a particular lane or service or that some method of scheduling and then deadheading sets of the trucks between train origin points be available. (Think of the fun involved with Flexi-Vans, but with the rail wheels and not the trailer bogies!)
The RailRunner system is a container underframe that uses the RoadRailer technology. Note that it is inherently a technology with much higher tare weight, and somewhat restricted cubage, compared to RoadRailer vans, and this greatly limits the ways it can be used cost-effectively or meaningfully in North American practice. Even before considerations of stack-train operation, it's generally much more effective to operate dedicated intermodal facilities that transfer containers from rail to vehicle underframes (or yard them for storage) than to operate point-to-point with a container sitting on a rail-capable underframe. (There is also an associated 'demurrage' problem with the RailRunner underframe becoming a very expensive dock adapter at the places the cargo is being stripped or stuffed, which can be overcome with a number of technological variants that alas! call for even more expensive capitalization and reduced tare weight if carried along on each RailRunner trip...)
The interest in the article (at least for me) was that in special conditions in Africa there might be a niche that justified higher-tare-weight operation of containers on rail-capable chassis. I'm still waiting for that discussion -- which has nothing whatever to do with RoadRailer van service.
daveklepper The special conditions are: An absence of four-lane divided highways or express highways of any type between cities with the exception of Johanessberg-Paretoria.
You should probably update your knowledge of the SA road system. There were more than this when I was traveling around there in the early '90s. Just a quick look at Google Earth shows N1 from J'berg to Cape Town, N3 down to Darwin and several more.
But I'm not spending more of my time to update you!
I took the train from Cape Town to Joburg in April. Saw exactly one really short container train between Cape Town and Kimberly. Route parallels N1. Nearly zero truck traffic. Why? Nothing to haul. Traffic is all to and from ports. Ships sail to closest port. Population between Joburg and Cape Town is sparse. There is potential getting stuff from ports to Joburg, though.
Another thing to remember is only 10% of population has much purchasing power. The country just doesn't generate huge flows of imported consumer goods.
Slight tangent here - I wonder if the Roadrailer technology would have potential in Russia? Main rail routes are largely electrified, ruling out double-stack container trains; roads are pretty poor; distances are unimaginably vast (Moscow to Vladivostok is about 9 hours by plane); and transport by water is not an option for most of the country, especially in winter.
The main obstacle to a potential mutually-advantageous commercial venture between Roadrailer manufacturer Wabash National, and Russian Railways, is of course the difficulty of conducting business in Russia, which stems from the attitude of politicians there.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.