Why don't we implement rotary car dumpers for containers? [/sarcasm]
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidIncidentally, this automated handling of containers is a prototype of what we need for rail yard switching. Just pick up the cars and shift them laterally to other tracks. Grab them in a way that locks thier trucks from pivoting and then lift the car by the locked trucks.
Just like many do on their model layouts.
Overmod Let's see. We'll assume a cost-effective lock at the center pin -- this is nontrivial with most contemporary three-piece trucks as constructed, but iirc the FRA thinks positive locking is a plus so we'll stipulate it. We lift the car and the wheelsets fall off -- the only thing 'locked' to the car is the bolster. We fix that and the weight of the wheels and sideframes hangs off the end of the bolster, probably stressing the wedges that keep the sideframes aligned with the bolster. Meanwhile we put a rotation lock on the center bearing, which MC would call a bozo-no-no of nearly Biblical proportions if it locks or binds with the car moving in traffic. Were you going to arrange this like those Kadee trucks that self-align with the axis of the car when you lift it? You're surely not expecting that carmen in this automated GHA future are going to be pulling some kind of lock and then remembering to release it a few tracks over... or pay Carmen to check disengagement along with retracted shoes and the like. The car is stressed relative to the center pivots and the side bearings, and may not be amenable to being lifted loaded by its jacking points. Certainly if this is something other than a well car, much of the strength is in the center sill, which is difficult to reach with an overhead lift arrangement. Meanwhile your center lock needs to be highly precise to get all eight wheels precisely on the railhead when lowered... on uneven track or on a windy day. No banging the flanges on a 'near miss', either -- and you don't have the long inching time GM could spend lowering Cadillacs in those silly containers. Far worse is the lifting arrangement. You'll probably finance catenary easier than full-span gantries over a yard, so I'd expect some kind of cable-supported spreader system... more degrees of freedom to acquire lost motion, stretching, wind-induced torque... automating this reliably could be done, but not for the putative gains over existing flat or hump switching per car actually moved. Only now do we get around to most practical intermodal sets being articulated. Do not ask me to tell you how to build cost-effective apparatus that lifts randomly-loaded 5-well or even 3-well sets, swings 'em over multiple tracks, and lands 'em with all the treads perfectly on the railhead -- over and over, faster and faster, with any defect or problem at all promptly stopping the car, operations on the affected tracks, the expensive handling equipment, and who knows how many trained or experienced people to address. Cable problems? Attachment point problems? DOWN it tumbles out of the sky, turning over as it goes... and Lo! What's underneath??? And the big savings from 0-5-0 analogue switching is what, exactly, in bottom-line dollars and cents net of TVM and capital cost? Much of that cost being truly stranded as having no other good use but a weird operating premise about car switching... I can start addressing the really difficult problems, like darkness, and snow, and malicious vandalism or sabotage, but I think you get the idea by now.
Let's see.
We'll assume a cost-effective lock at the center pin -- this is nontrivial with most contemporary three-piece trucks as constructed, but iirc the FRA thinks positive locking is a plus so we'll stipulate it.
We lift the car and the wheelsets fall off -- the only thing 'locked' to the car is the bolster.
We fix that and the weight of the wheels and sideframes hangs off the end of the bolster, probably stressing the wedges that keep the sideframes aligned with the bolster.
Meanwhile we put a rotation lock on the center bearing, which MC would call a bozo-no-no of nearly Biblical proportions if it locks or binds with the car moving in traffic. Were you going to arrange this like those Kadee trucks that self-align with the axis of the car when you lift it? You're surely not expecting that carmen in this automated GHA future are going to be pulling some kind of lock and then remembering to release it a few tracks over... or pay Carmen to check disengagement along with retracted shoes and the like.
The car is stressed relative to the center pivots and the side bearings, and may not be amenable to being lifted loaded by its jacking points. Certainly if this is something other than a well car, much of the strength is in the center sill, which is difficult to reach with an overhead lift arrangement.
Meanwhile your center lock needs to be highly precise to get all eight wheels precisely on the railhead when lowered... on uneven track or on a windy day. No banging the flanges on a 'near miss', either -- and you don't have the long inching time GM could spend lowering Cadillacs in those silly containers.
Far worse is the lifting arrangement. You'll probably finance catenary easier than full-span gantries over a yard, so I'd expect some kind of cable-supported spreader system... more degrees of freedom to acquire lost motion, stretching, wind-induced torque... automating this reliably could be done, but not for the putative gains over existing flat or hump switching per car actually moved.
Only now do we get around to most practical intermodal sets being articulated. Do not ask me to tell you how to build cost-effective apparatus that lifts randomly-loaded 5-well or even 3-well sets, swings 'em over multiple tracks, and lands 'em with all the treads perfectly on the railhead -- over and over, faster and faster, with any defect or problem at all promptly stopping the car, operations on the affected tracks, the expensive handling equipment, and who knows how many trained or experienced people to address. Cable problems? Attachment point problems? DOWN it tumbles out of the sky, turning over as it goes... and Lo! What's underneath???
And the big savings from 0-5-0 analogue switching is what, exactly, in bottom-line dollars and cents net of TVM and capital cost? Much of that cost being truly stranded as having no other good use but a weird operating premise about car switching...
I can start addressing the really difficult problems, like darkness, and snow, and malicious vandalism or sabotage, but I think you get the idea by now.
We'll assume a cost-effective lock at the center pin to 'hold the truck on the car' -- this is nontrivial with most contemporary three-piece trucks as constructed, but iirc the FRA thinks positive locking is a plus so we'll stipulate it.
We lift the car and the wheelsets promptly fall off -- the only thing 'locked' to the car is the bolster.
We fix that (at considerable aggregate cost) and the weight of the wheels and sideframes hangs off the end of the bolster, probably stressing the wedges that keep the sideframes aligned with the bolster.
NittanyLion Euclid Elasticity also applies to the consumers' ability to stretch their supply by doing with less when prices rise. Driving less to save gasoline cost is an example. This one is the opposite: gas is inelastic. Virtually every study conducted has concluded that gas prices have effectively no influence on gas consumption. People don't drive more when gas is cheap and they don't drive less when gas is expensive. Most usage is usage that must occur regardless of the price. More than ninety-nine percent of an individual's travel is required trips that they must take (commutes, for example). They may defer a vacation because of high gas prices, but that's virtually nothing when it comes to their overall consumption.
Euclid Elasticity also applies to the consumers' ability to stretch their supply by doing with less when prices rise. Driving less to save gasoline cost is an example.
This one is the opposite: gas is inelastic. Virtually every study conducted has concluded that gas prices have effectively no influence on gas consumption. People don't drive more when gas is cheap and they don't drive less when gas is expensive. Most usage is usage that must occur regardless of the price. More than ninety-nine percent of an individual's travel is required trips that they must take (commutes, for example). They may defer a vacation because of high gas prices, but that's virtually nothing when it comes to their overall consumption.
While I don't disagree that price is not the primary determinate of gasoline demand, it is only a part of overall petroleum supply/demand. During the pandemic shut-down gasoline, as well as jet fuel, marine fuel and transit fuel demands all plummeted. This sent crude oil prices to below zero, in other words oil producers had to pay oil users/storage providers to take the oil off their hands. While certain sectors like gasoline have recovered, others like jet fuel have not. The oil&gas industry is totally integrated, so when different sectors are out of balance it affects everything. Refineries can try to adjust, but extra steps like cracking and synfuels are more costly. Also well production can't be stepped up instantaneously. So there can be wild swings in supply/demand, and consequently price, which I think is an underlying consideration in this thread.
Ajsikadkrr6 There are bottlenecks everywhere. If the port bottleneck is (ever) relieved by automating, then everything else that comes after (RR's, chassis's, drivers to haul them) will need to have appropriately upgraded capacity to handle the increased volume. It's not at all clear that such capacity exists at this point. As a general question, is there anything that would prevent one truck driver from hauling a double trailer of two intermodal boxes? I ask because while I regularly see doubles on the NY State Thruway, I simply cannot remember ever having seen a double that consisted of intermodal boxes/ chassis's. Might just be a fluke of where I usually drive, but was wondering if there might be some other explanation. I am surprised truckers haven't latched onto Double Stacking as a solution to capacity issues like the railroads have; however both are far behind the maritime industry stacking the boxes 10 -15 - 20 high on vessels. Wouldn't the circuitous routings necessary to ensure proper clearances take a significant bite out of any efficiencies gained?
There are bottlenecks everywhere. If the port bottleneck is (ever) relieved by automating, then everything else that comes after (RR's, chassis's, drivers to haul them) will need to have appropriately upgraded capacity to handle the increased volume. It's not at all clear that such capacity exists at this point.
As a general question, is there anything that would prevent one truck driver from hauling a double trailer of two intermodal boxes? I ask because while I regularly see doubles on the NY State Thruway, I simply cannot remember ever having seen a double that consisted of intermodal boxes/ chassis's. Might just be a fluke of where I usually drive, but was wondering if there might be some other explanation.
I am surprised truckers haven't latched onto Double Stacking as a solution to capacity issues like the railroads have; however both are far behind the maritime industry stacking the boxes 10 -15 - 20 high on vessels.
Wouldn't the circuitous routings necessary to ensure proper clearances take a significant bite out of any efficiencies gained?
Allow me to clarify: I meant two single height trailers pulled behind a single tractor, not two containers stacked on a single chassis. I never seen intermodal containers being moved like that around here, so was wondering if there was some reason for that.
Euclid tree68 Euclid It is caused by our obsolete receiving ports. From what I've read, it goes far beyond obsolete receiving ports. They can't get the cans out of the ports fast enough. The docks are full. And railroad intermodal yards across the country are stuffed to the gills, too. There is apparently a shortage of chassis, and of drivers to haul them. Maybe so. But a lot of this may be finger pointing to deflect blame. China is apparently manfacturing and shipping fast enough, but it is outside of our receiving ports here where we see all the parked ships. Incidentally, this automated handling of containers is a prototype of what we need for rail yard switching. Just pick up the cars and shift them laterally to other tracks. Grab them in a way that locks thier trucks from pivoting and then lift the car by the locked trucks.
tree68 Euclid It is caused by our obsolete receiving ports. From what I've read, it goes far beyond obsolete receiving ports. They can't get the cans out of the ports fast enough. The docks are full. And railroad intermodal yards across the country are stuffed to the gills, too. There is apparently a shortage of chassis, and of drivers to haul them.
Euclid It is caused by our obsolete receiving ports.
From what I've read, it goes far beyond obsolete receiving ports.
They can't get the cans out of the ports fast enough. The docks are full.
And railroad intermodal yards across the country are stuffed to the gills, too.
There is apparently a shortage of chassis, and of drivers to haul them.
Maybe so. But a lot of this may be finger pointing to deflect blame. China is apparently manfacturing and shipping fast enough, but it is outside of our receiving ports here where we see all the parked ships.
Incidentally, this automated handling of containers is a prototype of what we need for rail yard switching. Just pick up the cars and shift them laterally to other tracks. Grab them in a way that locks thier trucks from pivoting and then lift the car by the locked trucks.
The automated or semi-sutomated port container handling has been present in totally unionized ports of Rotterdam and Hamburg for years. All but containers for nearby destinations are put directly on railcars. I'm not sure if that is the case in the US. If not, itshould be implemented, as should more intermodal facilities to reduce the distance of trucking.
BaltACD adkrr64 ... There are bottlenecks everywhere. If the port bottleneck is (ever) relieved by automating, then everything else that comes after (RR's, chassis's, drivers to haul them) will need to have appropriately upgraded capacity to handle the increased volume. It's not at all clear that such capacity exists at this point. As a general question, is there anything that would prevent one truck driver from hauling a double trailer of two intermodal boxes? I ask because while I regularly see doubles on the NY State Thruway, I simply cannot remember ever having seen a double that consisted of intermodal boxes/ chassis's. Might just be a fluke of where I usually drive, but was wondering if there might be some other explanation. I am surprised truckers haven't latched onto Double Stacking as a solution to capacity issues like the railroads have; however both are far behind the maritime industry stacking the boxes 10 -15 - 20 high on vessels.
adkrr64 ... There are bottlenecks everywhere. If the port bottleneck is (ever) relieved by automating, then everything else that comes after (RR's, chassis's, drivers to haul them) will need to have appropriately upgraded capacity to handle the increased volume. It's not at all clear that such capacity exists at this point. As a general question, is there anything that would prevent one truck driver from hauling a double trailer of two intermodal boxes? I ask because while I regularly see doubles on the NY State Thruway, I simply cannot remember ever having seen a double that consisted of intermodal boxes/ chassis's. Might just be a fluke of where I usually drive, but was wondering if there might be some other explanation.
Overmod Euclid Grab them in a way that locks thier trucks from pivoting and then lift the car by the locked trucks. You seem to have no idea what a disaster this would be in practice, on a number of practical levels... the amusing thing being that you had a special technical interest in Ohio tender truck design and therefore appreciate better than nearly anyone else here why the idea you proposed is a Really Bad Thing.
Euclid Grab them in a way that locks thier trucks from pivoting and then lift the car by the locked trucks.
You seem to have no idea what a disaster this would be in practice, on a number of practical levels... the amusing thing being that you had a special technical interest in Ohio tender truck design and therefore appreciate better than nearly anyone else here why the idea you proposed is a Really Bad Thing.
Please list the practical levels that would make this a disaster. What I propose is lifting first and primarily with the car frame, but also grab the trucks so they stay aligned with the car frame and cannot drop out of their center bearing engagement.
adkrr64... There are bottlenecks everywhere. If the port bottleneck is (ever) relieved by automating, then everything else that comes after (RR's, chassis's, drivers to haul them) will need to have appropriately upgraded capacity to handle the increased volume. It's not at all clear that such capacity exists at this point. As a general question, is there anything that would prevent one truck driver from hauling a double trailer of two intermodal boxes? I ask because while I regularly see doubles on the NY State Thruway, I simply cannot remember ever having seen a double that consisted of intermodal boxes/ chassis's. Might just be a fluke of where I usually drive, but was wondering if there might be some other explanation.
EuclidGrab them in a way that locks thier trucks from pivoting and then lift the car by the locked trucks.
tree68Euclid It is caused by our obsolete receiving ports. They can't get the cans out of the ports fast enough. The docks are full. And railroad intermodal yards across the country are stuffed to the gills, too. There is apparently a shortage of chassis, and of drivers to haul them.
It is caused by our obsolete receiving ports.
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...
rdamon They are take a look at this video
They are take a look at this video
Thanks for posting that. I see a lof of other videos about this automated container handling. When I think about it, this is the perfectly logical way to handle and sort containers, which are already standardized boxes ready for such handling.
This supply chain problem is not caused by China manufacturing or exporting. It is also not caused by the container ships. It is caused by our obsolete receiving ports. With all this crowing about fixing up our infrastructure, why not fix this??
If we don't fix it, the entire supply chain will become economically unviable. You can pass the bloated costs onto the comsumer all you want, but they will just quit buying and look for a better deal elsewhere.
EuclidSo, does that mean that port labor cannot be reduced if labor saving technology is available?
But I am not deluded by false or partial understanding of reasons its 'take rate' is not great, and neither should you be.
If I were going to stand up in the union hall and discuss automation (and expect to leave under my own power!) I'd start by guaranteeing a certain number of hours a week to members, regardless of time actually spent on the crane, and I would retrain expert crane operators to have lucrative skills in automated-equipment design, programming, and repair. Don't know how far I'd get practically with that, but it's like global-cooling reglaciation in h-e-double toothpicks without it...
.
I see we're cheerfully back to multiple undesired posts! What a great stage three this spring has been!
tree68 Euclid If port automation would make the port operate faster and at a lower cost, so what it if cuts manpower? Those are all union jobs...
Euclid If port automation would make the port operate faster and at a lower cost, so what it if cuts manpower?
Those are all union jobs...
So, does that mean that port labor cannot be reduced if labor saving technology is available?
EuclidI have read that our ports must convert to automation in order to keep up with the supply chain shipping. I see that the technology exists as demonstrated by what they are doing in China. Why are our ports not doing the same? Do we have any ports that incorporate the same degree of automation that is seen here in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEr2Ze4Lxqw
For all the 'wiz bang' the video showed - it didn't show boxes leaving or entering the terminal area.
Are all the truck drivers that originate and terminate the boxes in the hinterlands and dray them to the port also automated?
Convicted one:
NS runs a pair of intermodal trains between Chicago and Southeast...trains 215/216 are Atlanta trains with 282 and 229 working between Chicago and Jacksonville. Train 25A runs between Chicago and Chattanooga, primarily with international containers, quite a bit for auto manufacturing in Lexington, Ky area.
No need to check in with my own experience with shortages and higher costs...everyone has their stories. What will really accelerate, perhaps not this year, but down the road will be autonomous trucks and perhaps one man train crews. The labor is simply not there at this time, perhaps in the future.
Ed
EuclidIf port automation would make the port operate faster and at a lower cost, so what it if cuts manpower?
tree68 Euclid Why are our ports not doing the same? The answer was right in the video: "cut manpower by 70%..."
Euclid Why are our ports not doing the same?
The answer was right in the video: "cut manpower by 70%..."
cv_acr Convicted One FWIW. I see container trains headed to Chicago all the time on Norfolk Southern's New Castle District. I can't say for sure they originate in Florida, but it's a safe bet these have passed through Cincinnati...and very likely Atlanta before that. So, a significant quantity of containers appear to be coming ashore somewhere on the east coast. Perhaps therein lies an opportunity to bypass the western blockade? But: what are (predominantely) the containers on those trains (Asian, Middle East, European, domestic? Not all the container shipping into North America comes from China and there is a lot of domestic traffice between major North American cities and at least 3/4 of cross country traffic seems to squeeze through the Chicago bottlneck... and, how do we know they're loaded or empties?
Convicted One FWIW. I see container trains headed to Chicago all the time on Norfolk Southern's New Castle District. I can't say for sure they originate in Florida, but it's a safe bet these have passed through Cincinnati...and very likely Atlanta before that. So, a significant quantity of containers appear to be coming ashore somewhere on the east coast. Perhaps therein lies an opportunity to bypass the western blockade?
But: what are (predominantely) the containers on those trains (Asian, Middle East, European, domestic? Not all the container shipping into North America comes from China and there is a lot of domestic traffice between major North American cities and at least 3/4 of cross country traffic seems to squeeze through the Chicago bottlneck...
and, how do we know they're loaded or empties?
Look at the doors. Empties aren't usually locked and/or sealed. Loaded ones are.
Jeff
Convicted One Murphy Siding Well, don't you have to get that excess power back to where the excess containers and chassis are going? Okay, I'm no two fisted, hard swinging railroad man,... but pulling a dead locomotive in tow in the middle of a long string of "empty" containers does NOT seem like smart railroading to me. Even out here in the spansive and flat soybean fields of the lower midwest.
Murphy Siding Well, don't you have to get that excess power back to where the excess containers and chassis are going?
Okay, I'm no two fisted, hard swinging railroad man,... but pulling a dead locomotive in tow in the middle of a long string of "empty" containers does NOT seem like smart railroading to me. Even out here in the spansive and flat soybean fields of the lower midwest.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
If your seeing trains on the BNSF with DPUs in them they're online and providing power. Right now their favorite thing is to combine trains on the transcon between Chicago to either Galesburg or Fort Madison were their split up and then run as separate trains. The only trains exempt from this are the UPS traffic and other Z coded traffic. My hubby got caught by a triple combined one today. Head end was export boxes with 4 GEs second was a solid JB Hunt Schneider train with a GE and 3 thundercab SD70ACES as trailers. The tail train was a mixture of export and domestic stuff with a lot of Amazon and Walmart containers he said. It had a 600 class rebuilt leader and 3 sd70macs trailing and all he said were smoking to beat the band as they accelerated out of town.
Maybe they are filling the empty containers up with BS and sending that back to China to be used as fertilizer? There seems to be an abundance of that floating around lately.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.