Lets have a serious discusion about Amtrak tacking Passengers cars on the back of Hot Intermodals

[Anonymous]

Spoke with a Mr Sallem today about Passenger Trains and freight who is the Amtrak Operating head for New England. He mentioned that Amtrak did do a cursery look at tacking Passenger Cars on the back of intermodal trains about 7 years ago. There are a number of corridors were this could work Such as NJ-Albany-Buffalo-Chicago . This could minimise freight-passenger conflicts. Now before you say "WHAT ABOUT THE SLACK ACTION" I can assure you that Slack Action is minimal on Stack Trains and Piggybacks from Personal Experance Riding such trains. I would place Passenger cars Up Front on Pig trains and on the rear of Stacks. Also remember that there was a TRAINS artical were trains writers rode on a buisness car tacked on the back of a BNSF freight train. Buisness Cars have been tacked on the back of freight trains for years for railroad managements buddys. For A look at the nations freight railroad intermodal scedules and the places tha they serve go to scedz.com

[Anonymous]

First, lets take a look at that website via a link:

<http://www.scedz.com>

[Anonymous]

...that link doesn't work for me.

[Anonymous]

Okay, tried the link, it didn't work, so if you can provide a more accurate link to your source ClevelandRocks, we'd appreciate it.

That being said, we covered this a while back, and the consensus was this:
1. The Amtrak schedules are usually faster than the hottest intermodal, although that could change
2. Intermodals go to intermodal terminals, not downtown passenger stations. You'd either have to move the waiting shack out to the terminal, or have a dog catch crew bring the passenger equipment the rest of the way into town.
3. Those points aside, it would be cheaper for the taxpayers if Amtrak would pay the railroads for the added costs of tacking passenger equipment onto intermodal consists, rather than running their own trains.

[rrnut282]

The link didn't work for me, either.
I think scheduling will be a major drawback. Is Amtackacarontheback going to publish a timetable that states we're supposed to leave at noon, but depending upon crew availability, car loading times, EOT problems, line congestion, terminal delays, etc, actual departure may vary. That sounds like a great way to plan a trip, doesn't it? If you want to kill what's left of intercity passenger travel, this is a great idea.
Another drawback is the partial release feature of passenger car brakes doesn't work very well mixed in with regular freight equipment. And if this problem is dealt with, how and who is going to supply head end power for the coaches when they are at the end of a stack train?

[arbfbe]

It would simply provide a lower quality of service to both sets of customers. Tacking intermodal traffic on hot passenger trains might work out a little better but the Class Ones would never allow that.

[dldance]

A very good example of what would happen with the mixed priorities of passenger and freight was Amtrak's recently terminated experience with RoadRailers. No matter what happens. the schedule is adversely impacted.

dd

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

It would simply provide a lower quality of service to both sets of customers. Tacking intermodal traffic on hot passenger trains might work out a little better but the Class Ones would never allow that.

That's what I was just thinking, it's actually probably easier to look at tacking on some intermodal cars to a passenger train..... like in the old days when Amtrak ran mail.

Of course that opens up an entire can of worms Union wise, the various running trade unions probably wouldn't be too hot on Amtrak trains hauling freight.

..then there is also the issue of speed retrictions on freight equipment, you don't often see COFC running by at 90MPH.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

It would simply provide a lower quality of service to both sets of customers. Tacking intermodal traffic on hot passenger trains might work out a little better but the Class Ones would never allow that.

That's what I was just thinking, it's actually probably easier to look at tacking on some intermodal cars to a passenger train..... like in the old days when Amtrak ran mail.

Of course that opens up an entire can of worms Union wise, the various running trade unions probably wouldn't be too hot on Amtrak trains hauling freight.

..then there is also the issue of speed retrictions on freight equipment, you don't often see COFC running by at 90MPH.

They just tried that. It didn't work. Gunn just took Amtrak out of this operation.

[mudchicken]

Why? - Neither the freight railroads or the passenger railroads would like the result.

Try reality sometime.

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Randy Stahl]

Hey L.C.... Meet you in the dining car.!

[Junctionfan]

I don't see much need for that. The only possible and by that I mean next to impossible; intermodal train lash up would be for the roadrailer ones of NS because they are short and generally don't go more that 80 trailer and are really light too.

Personally, if I was David Goode, I would think you were on cheap drugs but because I'm not him, I'll be polite and say nothing.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Why? - Neither the freight railroads or the passenger railroads would like the result.

Try reality sometime.

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

Well, then the result must be pretty gosh darn awful.

What are you trying to say?

[RudyRockvilleMD]

What Cleveland Rocks proposes is long distance, high-speed, mixed trains. The Auto Train carries passengers and autos between Lorton, Virginia and Sanford, FL; however, the passenger
cars are up front to avoid whipping, and for ease of making the head-end power connections.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

In the brief period between 1971 and 1975, Southern operated the Washington-Atlanta "Piedmont" and Washington-Lynchburg 7-8 as mainline mixeds. The "Piedmont" was operated as a passenger train hauling TTX flats and trailers on the back and 7-8 was operated as a coach stuck just behind the locomotives of an intermodal train. It helped keep losses under control for trains that Southern had to run as part of the price for not joining Amtrak in 1971.

[jkeaton]

Speaking of service to Georgia - didn't the Georgia Railroad run a "mainline mixed" into the 1980s using a streamline coach tucked in behind the diesels, rather than join Amtrak?

In isolated areas, I can see passenger trains hauling a few cars/trailers of priority freight behind them, as VIA Rail does on its Churchill line - but that is local railroading, not high speed service.

Jim

[DSchmitt]

This is probably the correct link:

http://www.skedz.com/scripts/welcome.asp

[oltmannd]

It's a fun idea to consider, but intermodal schedules generally don't mesh well with passenger demand and service is generally too slow. There might be a niche here or there where there is no current passenger service that would work.

Back when I was a new hire and Conrail ran 2 pair of fairly small Mail (intermodal) trains between the east and Chicago and St Louis on a fairly fast schedule, I often thought they should have tucked a coach and a sleeper behind the power on each one and made the non agreements ride rather than fly to and from Phila. The only good way to get an idea of what the RR is really like and how well it's operating is to get out there. You miss a lot at 30,000 feet.

Ultimately, the mail trains grew and got slow and the idea looked less feasible. I always wondered how the economics would have worked out, though.

[oltmannd]

Here's a city pair w/o service:

Atlanta to Cincinnati

NS train 216 leaves Atlanta at 6PM daily and arrives Cincinnati at 7PM the next day. 25 hours by rail. You can drive it in 7 hours. Don't think you'd get many takers.

Or Atlanta to Chicago

NS leave 6PM arrive 10AM two days later
CSX leave 3PM arrive 10AM two days later

41-44 hours by rail. 11 1/2 by car. Don't think you'd get many takers here, either.

Atlanta to Dallas

midnight (bad departure time!) to 11:45 two days later

37 hours by rail - 12 hours by car. Looks bad.

Atlanta to Miami FL

depart 9PM arrive 12:30 AM (bad arrival time!)

28 hours by rail, 11 hour drive - a little better.

It just looks like these trains are way to slow to be useful to passengers.

[Overmod]

I assume this post is at least semi-serious, and not a rehashed troll of previous threads on this general topic. (I probably ASSume wrong... ;-})

A few random thoughts:

One place I thought this specific approach might have worked was for a service I developed for the NEC back in the '70s, which presumed the 'expected' trackwork improvements to 150mph and continued freight operations that were supposed to happen at that time. This would have used extremely specialized high-speed intermodal trainsets and high-speed electric/diesel road power to run 'overnight express' service for ISO containers essentially between Boston and Washington. I thought at the time that the consist of the Owl could have been attached at the end of one of these trains (which were designed with active slack management and proportional electronic brakes) and thereby provide some political and economic 'subsidy' for the development and operation of the special high-speed trains.

Of course, I think a better approach is to provide some kind of private passenger accommodation on 'mixed' trains, although there'd be a whole set of threads on this forum about how you'd market it, who the 'target' clientele would be, what the emergency-handling procedures would be, etc.

In any case, you won't run this kind of service with 'ordinary' intermodal trainsets, let alone with luck-of-the-draw interchange freight cars. Hazardous material cars? Worn wheelsets? Long stops enroute or at yard approaches? Wait... I have to stop laughing. What's next, someone pointing out (technically correctly) that you could run passenger cars fairly readily behind a DPU trailer on a unit coal train... ?

Seriously, find me a customer application that supports dedicated high-speed intermodal, and I'll find you an operating model for some form of passenger operation that can be co-run with it. I doubt, however, whether that operation would be Amtrak either in capital or operating respects.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

I assume this post is at least semi-serious, and not a rehashed troll of previous threads on this general topic. (I probably ASSume wrong... ;-})

A few random thoughts:
........

Seriously, find me a customer application that supports dedicated high-speed intermodal, and I'll find you an operating model for some form of passenger operation that can be co-run with it. I doubt, however, whether that operation would be Amtrak either in capital or operating respects.

The way we've segregated passenger and freight these days, it might be too big of a political gap to breech, not matter how much sense it made..... There would be much hand wringing over whether or not the passenger subsidy was winding up in the pockets of the freight RRs.

[dharmon]

What if we get rid of the passenger cars and just put the passengers in the containers, double stacked? Then they could go out on the platforms to enjoy fresh air and the view, just like an old observation car. When they get to the IM terminal the whole container is put on a truck and driven to the Amtrak terminal or loaded onto a different car if they are through passengers. It could be expanded to include an excting Maersk line cruise, all in the same container!

[dharmon]

My understanding is that FRA and DOT only require shakles in boxcars that were built prior to 1994. Not being an engineer, it would seem that the 20 and 40 foot containers would have better crash-worthiness than the domestic 45s, 48s and 53s, plus the 20 footers could be made into first or business class accomadations with bags of rags and old army surplus blankets that can be used as day beds or convertable beds, while the 40 foot coach class would retain straw or more likely foam packing material. The addition of a Thermo-King refrigeration unit could be done for the southern routes in the summer. A dedicated container could be assigned for checked baggage also, to keep the cans from rolling around.

[Overmod]

No, the shackling requirements, as well as the noise protection, power points for active information-retrieval equipment and Taser recharge, and distributed tracking-device infrastructure were changed in 1996. This was about the same time that the military transport-pod modifications were approved to allow these railcars to be converted in time of national need -- a key component leading to increased Congressional willingness to let Amtrak fall by the wayside.

Crash-worthiness of the containers is incidental, as all of them are essentially escape-proof without special tools. Note that your point about 20 and 40 foot containers applies to structural strength and "cell" suitability (honest! look it up!) on modern container ships... admittedly for 'steerage' accommodations rather than the perhaps more exciting deck-with-a-view.

Cans are best accommodated via a press to collapse them, as they 'package' better in this form, and rattle and smell less.

[StillGrande]

Looking at the schedules, I have to agree with Don. It is 2 1/2 days by rail from Baltimore and DC to Atlanta, and you don't even change railroads.

A question about the schedules. Do they show the real departure time and arrival time or just cut off and trailer available at the other end times? Still wouldn't change my answer. 2 days is too long for a passenger train to get from here to there.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by StillGrande

Looking at the schedules, I have to agree with Don. It is 2 1/2 days by rail from Baltimore and DC to Atlanta, and you don't even change railroads.

A question about the schedules. Do they show the real departure time and arrival time or just cut off and trailer available at the other end times? Still wouldn't change my answer. 2 days is too long for a passenger train to get from here to there.

I think they're cut-off to availabilty, which are generally an hour or two from train arrival/departure.

[Anonymous]

skedz.com lists CSX has having real time departures

[Junctionfan]

Your problem is also with speed limits. For most areas anyways, the difference between passenger speeds and even intermodal speeds can be too slow for any effective passenger schedule.

[Anonymous]

"Mr and Mrs Berg of Teaneck New Jersey, your grand prize, behind Door Number 3. You'll be taken to the intermodal yards and escorted through the passenger boarding facility to your deluxe closet on a train. Your sleeping car will be tacked on behind Symbol Freight NJC-57 for a fun ride to the outskirts of Chicago. We have a deluxe basket of fruit and mineral water so you won't want for anything on your 30 hour jorney. (please don't share it with the deadheads."
Ah...There's something about a train that's magic.
Mitch

[edblysard]

Your gonna give 'em blankets?

Man, your going spoil them, big time....

Ed[:-^]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon

My understanding is that FRA and DOT only require shakles in boxcars that were built prior to 1994. Not being an engineer, it would seem that the 20 and 40 foot containers would have better crash-worthiness than the domestic 45s, 48s and 53s, plus the 20 footers could be made into first or business class accomadations with bags of rags and old army surplus blankets that can be used as day beds or convertable beds, while the 40 foot coach class would retain straw or more likely foam packing material. The addition of a Thermo-King refrigeration unit could be done for the southern routes in the summer. A dedicated container could be assigned for checked baggage also, to keep the cans from rolling around.