Roadrailer Chassis Container Freight

[SAMUEL C WALKER]

Might an enterprise  engage in freight container service with a Roadrailer type chassis container carrier that eliminates the tare of TTX and lessens horsepower requirements plus faster operation. No need for special lift equipment once the container and Roadrailer chassis is together. Mode to mode changeover and delivery to a loading dock will be faster. That volume of untapped business would ceate a train frequency compatible and complementary for passenger Roadrailers as well. Is this an overlooked opportunity for a trucking company, ship operator, port authority or railroad?

[daveklepper]

Reminiscent of General Motors of Canada's Voyager concept.

I doubt it would compete with either double-stack economics for long-haul or plain truck haulage for short-haul in North America.

But it might be just great here in Israel or in Europe and the UK where infrastucture prohibits double-stacking, paticularly for transfer to-and-from ocean shipping.

I will pass-on your idea to Israel Railways.

[BaltACD]

SAMUEL C WALKER

Might an enterprise  engage in freight container service with a Roadrailer type chassis container carrier that eliminates the tare of TTX and lessens horsepower requirements plus faster operation. No need for special lift equipment once the container and Roadrailer chassis is together. Mode to mode changeover and delivery to a loading dock will be faster. That volume of untapped business would ceate a train frequency compatible and complementary for passenger Roadrailers as well. Is this an overlooked opportunity for a trucking company, ship operator, port authority or railroad?

NS tried - and over the long term failed.  The service didn't generate sufficient profits to warrant investment in a 2nd generation of equipment to replace the 1st generation that was worn out.

[traisessive1]

Railroads don't want to invest in technology that is single stack. Single stack is lost capacity which means increased train starts and added costs. 

[greyhounds]

SAMUEL C WALKER

Might an enterprise  engage in freight container service with a Roadrailer type chassis container carrier that eliminates the tare of TTX and lessens horsepower requirements plus faster operation. No need for special lift equipment once the container and Roadrailer chassis is together. Mode to mode changeover and delivery to a loading dock will be faster. That volume of untapped business would ceate a train frequency compatible and complementary for passenger Roadrailers as well. Is this an overlooked opportunity for a trucking company, ship operator, port authority or railroad?

I had more experience with RoadRailers than was good for me.  No one ever figured out how to carry containers with RoadRailer equipment in an efficient, economical manner.  People sure tried to figure it out.  None succeeded.  Some outfit, I think it was RailMaster, did build some RoadRailer type chassis that could be used to carry 48’ containers. 

 

Their equipment was not a commercial success. It’s far easier to design and build something than it is to make it a commercial success.  And, in the end, being a commercial success is what counts.

 

The first problem encountered is weight.  Highways have limits on gross vehicle weight.  These limits can vary but we can think of 80,000 pounds (40 tons) as kind of a “US National Limit”.  A normal container/chassis combination will weigh more than a competing highway trailer.  On most loads this won’t really matter because the freight will fill up the container/trailer cubic capacity before it will hit the weight limit.  But enough loads will hit the weight limit to make the weight issue critical.  Railroads must compensate for this by reducing their freight charges. Turning the chassis into a RoadRailer type vehicle, essentially a surrogate rail car, will add even more weight to the container/chassis combination.  Not good.

 

The 2^nd problem is that containers come in varying lengths.  If we have RoadRailer type chassis that can handle 53’ containers, how do we handle 20’ containers?   I was flat out told by the engineering VP at RoadRailer that just setting a 20’ container on a 53’ chassis would produce a very unstable rail vehicle.  I’m not an engineer and was in no position to argue that one.

 

The 3^rd problem I’ll cite is the “Interoperability Issue.”   Our rail system is a network that stretches from Fairbanks, Alaska to Guatemala.   The RoadRailer people never really got it through their heads that introducing incompatible equipment on the network was going to be a monumentally difficult and expensive proposition.  This is what eventually killed off RoadRailers. 

[Overmod]

There was such a thing, and it was called the RailRunner.  The problem has been that no one wants to pay the costs to obtain the particular convenience.

There iis a limit to how light you can make a roadable chassis that also handles container loads that may not be balanced or that shift enroute.  That limit rises somewhat dramatically if the chassis is then intended to take buff and draft load as part of a train of similar cars or RoadRailer vans (see the threads on 'stringlining')which.  This before you get into the added tare weight of the container, which was necessary for high stacking with ocean loading but tons of overkill as a 'van replacement'.

All would still be well if there were markets in a particular lane for high speed and quick driveaway, the first problem being that your intermodal transfers still leave you at a disadvantage to a pair of team drivers with a van, and the second problem being that the extra weight cuts into legal payload on-road -- worse because the fuel to accommodate the extra weight itself counts as part of the combination weight...

One thing that might be tried would be a light container underframe that fits kangaroo-pocket skeleton flats.  Designing this correctly would let it be gang-unloaded by a CargoSpeed-like method (underlift, find balance point, rotate at an angle, use yard tractors in parallel to load and unload trains in little more than the  time to load a single) in a manner far simpler than having to reinforce conventional trailers or use the kludge methods for lifting them at the bogie and pin.

The catch is that most business, including plenty of LCL, values precise and reliable delivery far more than expensive speed.  A great deal of that delivery involves break-bulk and cross-dock into more suitable vehicles -- optimizing that with modern warehousing equipment is a growth field! -- and this would restrict the special chassis to in-yard or local operation -- see what sorts of operation would be facilitated by that.  I think that a combination of optimized dunnage and head-down load ID and sorting is far more important than quick but overweight bulk mode transfer.  Let the railroads dither about trainload lot handling!

[SAMUEL C WALKER]

Perhaps the concept would demonstrated there and from there become an investment opprtunity for Israel Railways Corporation elsewhere. I had to go to my 2011 Janes World Railways to learn more about the railroad system in Israel. I vlaue your postings here.

 

[SAMUEL C WALKER]

NS used only dry vans. They never transported containers using a Roadrailer Chassis. Perhaps they could have scaled up their Triple Crown Services if they had thought outside the dry van box and included a container box?

[Backshop]

SAMUEL C WALKER

NS used only dry vans. They never transported containers using a Roadrailer Chassis. Perhaps they could have scaled up their Triple Crown Services if they had thought outside the dry van box and included a container box?

 

Reread greyhounds answer concerning different container lengths and added tare weight.

[SAMUEL C WALKER]

As to weight for the proposed container on Roadrailer chassis concern. Thta is something that should be considered as to whether or not the idea is practical and to what degree. If the orgination is a port, then no public road with weight limits is involved. If the destination is warehouse facility next to a destination yard, then weight limits are not an issue. If the destination dock requires transit over a public road, then an agreement can be negotiated with the state and/or municipality should be pursued.

It is assumed that a chassis will / should / must match the length of a container.  That would be true for conventional highway movement for current conventional equipment. While conventional TTX deep well equipment provides for variable loading combinations of different size containers; doing so requires substantial crane lift investment and time consuming waste in doing so. Inherent to TTX is heavy railroad cars far exceeding the weight of the porposed Roadrailer chassis. More weight mean s more horsepower / tractive force required.

Interoperability. Roadrailer potential to operate faster than conventional TTX heavy equipment for the same track first because of lowered center of gravity and second by the inherent stabillity of Roadrailer attachments via front tongue and rear slot with an 18 inch gap between vehicles contributes to better aerodynamics impossible with TTX heavy rail equipment. An exclusive train of Roadrailer equipment is superior to a string of Raodrailers following a train of conventional railroad equipment.

The Roadrailer features have sufficient benefits that they should be considered to use to capture more containers now moved by truck. The enormous volume of container numbers alone argue for an operator of Raodrailer chassis to design price, product and placement to exploit Roadrailer concept and design with the steel wheel on steel rail efficiency for the line / long haul. Conventional Railroad terminal (YARD) costs and their delays destroy the significant railroad linehaul cost advantage.

[SD60MAC9500]

 

SAMUEL C WALKER

As to weight for the proposed container on Roadrailer chassis concern. Thta is something that should be considered as to whether or not the idea is practical and to what degree. If the orgination is a port, then no public road with weight limits is involved. If the destination is warehouse facility next to a destination yard, then weight limits are not an issue. If the destination dock requires transit over a public road, then an agreement can be negotiated with the state and/or municipality should be pursued.

It is assumed that a chassis will / should / must match the length of a container.  That would be true for conventional highway movement for current conventional equipment. While conventional TTX deep well equipment provides for variable loading combinations of different size containers; doing so requires substantial crane lift investment and time consuming waste in doing so. Inherent to TTX is heavy railroad cars far exceeding the weight of the porposed Roadrailer chassis. More weight mean s more horsepower / tractive force required.

Interoperability. Roadrailer potential to operate faster than conventional TTX heavy equipment for the same track first because of lowered center of gravity and second by the inherent stabillity of Roadrailer attachments via front tongue and rear slot with an 18 inch gap between vehicles contributes to better aerodynamics impossible with TTX heavy rail equipment. An exclusive train of Roadrailer equipment is superior to a string of Raodrailers following a train of conventional railroad equipment.

The Roadrailer features have sufficient benefits that they should be considered to use to capture more containers now moved by truck. The enormous volume of container numbers alone argue for an operator of Raodrailer chassis to design price, product and placement to exploit Roadrailer concept and design with the steel wheel on steel rail efficiency for the line / long haul. Conventional Railroad terminal (YARD) costs and their delays destroy the significant railroad linehaul cost advantage.

 

Railroads don't want; specialized, segregated equipment hauling low margin traffic. Even Triple Crown with its cheap to build terminals lost favor because of this. To the last part of your statement IM ramps don't destroy linehaul cost advantage.. The only cost disadvantage would be drayage.. As has been mentioned before. The more load per unit the lower the cost. Any container roadrailer system would drive up IM cost eroding any advantage. Pushing more freight onto the highways..

 

 

[greyhounds]

SAMUEL C WALKER

If the orgination is a port, then no public road with weight limits is involved. If the destination is warehouse facility next to a destination yard, then weight limits are not an issue. If the destination dock requires transit over a public road, then an agreement can be negotiated with the state and/or municipality should be pursued.   ........... Interoperability. Roadrailer potential to operate faster than conventional TTX heavy equipment for the same track first because of lowered center of gravity and second by the inherent stabillity of Roadrailer attachments via front tongue and rear slot with an 18 inch gap between vehicles contributes to better aerodynamics impossible with TTX heavy rail equipment. An exclusive train of Roadrailer equipment is superior to a string of Raodrailers following a train of conventional railroad equipment. The Roadrailer features have sufficient benefits that they should be considered to use to capture more containers now moved by truck. The enormous volume of container numbers alone argue for an operator of Raodrailer chassis to design price, product and placement to exploit Roadrailer concept and design with the steel wheel on steel rail efficiency for the line / long haul. Conventional Railroad terminal (YARD) costs and their delays destroy the significant railroad linehaul cost advantage.

You’re starting at the wrong place.  You’re starting with equipment and trying find a market for such equipment.   Things like that tend to work out badly.

 

Instead, start with the demand for freight services.  The demand curve drives most everything.  Is there sufficient demand for the services you propose to make them viable in economic terms?   I’ll say not just no, but Hell No! 

 

You cite a hypothetical move from a port to an inland facility that doesn’t use public roads.   OK, find such a movement with sufficient volume to support frequent train operation.  I’ll guarantee you that such opportunities are few and far between.  But if you know of one or two such opportunities please let us in on it.  And I’ll also claim that it’s almost always going to be more efficient to add those containers to an existing train than it will be to operate special trains to handle them.  

 

As to speed, existing intermodal equipment is good up to, and maybe beyond, 70 MPH.  Speed costs money.  Moving surface freight faster than that is generally wasteful.  The costs exceed the benefits.  And if it really, really must get there really, really soon, they’ve got these things called cargo planes.  If the goal is to improve railroad times between intermodal terminals the focus needs to be on keeping the trains moving at > 45 MPH.  No need for ballast scorching.  Just keep the trains moving.

 

Terminal costs aren't the problem.  Drayage costs are what kills intermodal at shorter distances.

 

I’ll agree that the railroads could do a better job marketing intermodal.  But RoadRailer chassis hauling containers seems to be a solution in search of a problem.  RoadRailers may make great trains, but they just don't fit the markets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[greyhounds]

SAMUEL C WALKER

The Roadrailer features have sufficient benefits that they should be considered to use to capture more containers now moved by truck. The enormous volume of container numbers alone argue for an operator of Raodrailer chassis to design price, product and placement to exploit Roadrailer concept and design with the steel wheel on steel rail efficiency for the line / long haul. Conventional Railroad terminal (YARD) costs and their delays destroy the significant railroad linehaul cost advantage.

I'll go on.  

RoadRailer didn’t work out.  That certainly does not mean that it can never work out in the future.  But RoadRailer just didn’t work.  You’ve got to be able to explain their universal failure before making another effort.

 

RoadRailers were tried by the CN, CSX, Conrail, NS, Santa Fe/BNSF, CP, ICG, and Union Pacific.  They were also tried in other countries such as Australia.  Never were they successful.  Never.

 

So, if they’re so wonderful why did they fail so badly?  That’s an important question.  Do you have an answer?

 

I say they don’t fit a market demand.  Do you have a different answer?

 

As to tare weight.  A Greenbrier three well double stack car will carry six containers and have a light weight of 129,500 pounds.  That’s ~21,600 per container.  IIRC, a two axle RoadRailer bogie will weigh 11,600.  So, can anyone come up with a RoadRailer type chassis that can stand the in-train forces needed to function as a surrogate railcar while weighing only 10,000 pounds.  Good luck.  Otherwise, the weight advantage goes to double stack.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

Roadrailers have a double disadvantage.  They require maintanice to 2 seperate standards.  They require being able to meet FMCSA standards plus FRA requirements at the same time.  That means extra shop time for the equipment for each requirement.  They also weigh about 1 ton more than a standard trailer so there is a weight penalty the carrier has to absorb.  Then you get to the FRA saying they had to be either at the end of IM trains or run as seperate trains.  So they required extra handling.  So they are the redheaded stepchild in the Intermodal industry.  They tried to be something that they could not be.  At least the Mark 5 was way lighter than the first of the latest ones that came out where the trailer lugged the railroad wheelset around with it all the time.  Look up the Mark 4 roadrailer and cringe.