BaltACD SD60MAC9500 timz It's not clear in the video that either of the stack trains has any full-height stacks -- two 9 ft 6 in containers. Is that allowed? Yes they are running doublestacked HC containers. Look for the black and yellow stripes decal on the upper corners of the containers. These denote a HC container. My eyes didn't catch and HC containers - all appeared to be sea boxes.
SD60MAC9500 timz It's not clear in the video that either of the stack trains has any full-height stacks -- two 9 ft 6 in containers. Is that allowed? Yes they are running doublestacked HC containers. Look for the black and yellow stripes decal on the upper corners of the containers. These denote a HC container.
timz It's not clear in the video that either of the stack trains has any full-height stacks -- two 9 ft 6 in containers. Is that allowed?
It's not clear in the video that either of the stack trains has any full-height stacks -- two 9 ft 6 in containers. Is that allowed?
Yes they are running doublestacked HC containers. Look for the black and yellow stripes decal on the upper corners of the containers. These denote a HC container.
My eyes didn't catch and HC containers - all appeared to be sea boxes.
You'll have to pause video. ISO boxes come in both standard 8'6" and HC 9'6". Next time you see, or get stopped by a doublestack. Watch for the ISO boxes that have the black and yellow stripped decal in the upper corners. That denotes a HC container regardless of Domestic or ISO.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
(Edit: as he explained, 9 ft 6 in containers have a black/yellow strip at the top corner of the end of the box, and in the video we can see several pairs of such boxes stacked.)
Erik_Mag mudchicken The catenary height is not necessarilly the issue. The bigger issue is the clearance height of existing overhead fixed infrastructure. (ie- bridges, tunnels and (to a limited degree) overhead wirelines. Which brings up an anecdote from the 1991-92 SCRRA hearings on the electrification proposal: Half the cost of the proposed electrification would have been creating the necessary overhead clearance ($2 billion out of the estimated $4 billion). One workaround would be equipping electric locomotives with batteries to provide power though the gaps in the catenary where it would be too expensive to create the necessary clearance for energized catenary. I'm not suprised to hear about the overhead clearance issues - after watching the construction of reinforcing of the I-5 crossing of the Surf Line just south of San Onofre some 50 years after the freewat was built.
mudchicken The catenary height is not necessarilly the issue. The bigger issue is the clearance height of existing overhead fixed infrastructure. (ie- bridges, tunnels and (to a limited degree) overhead wirelines.
The catenary height is not necessarilly the issue. The bigger issue is the clearance height of existing overhead fixed infrastructure. (ie- bridges, tunnels and (to a limited degree) overhead wirelines.
Which brings up an anecdote from the 1991-92 SCRRA hearings on the electrification proposal: Half the cost of the proposed electrification would have been creating the necessary overhead clearance ($2 billion out of the estimated $4 billion).
One workaround would be equipping electric locomotives with batteries to provide power though the gaps in the catenary where it would be too expensive to create the necessary clearance for energized catenary.
I'm not suprised to hear about the overhead clearance issues - after watching the construction of reinforcing of the I-5 crossing of the Surf Line just south of San Onofre some 50 years after the freewat was built.
Over the past decade Maryland had to rebuild the bridges on I-70 crossing over the CSX branch into Frederick, MD that is being used by MARC commuter trains. The original bridges were built with what appeared (without measuring) to be about 20 foot clearance - the new bridges were built to have about 25 foot clearance.
The original bridges were constructed early in the authorization of the Interstate system in the late 1950's.
BaltACD SD60MAC9500 BaltACD CMStPnP Up until now I did not think they could do this for some reason I did not think the loco would be able to reach the wire with the extra clearance.............which I guess begs the question on why we do not build electric railways to these clearance specs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVT8AivUnFU The engine of the first train does have what appears to be a excessively lengthy pantograph in order to reach from the engine to the wire. Most of the boxes were international ocean boxes, however, I saw a couple of cars that were higher than most. With the boxes appearing to be sitting on top of the car trucks, is it possible that India's double stacks require even more height clearence than the 20 foot 2 inch height that double stacked domestic boxes measure in North America, as the 20 foot 2 inch is achieved with the bottom layer of boxes having their floor below the top of the car trucks. Correct. India does not use wellcars. They went with flats to get a greater box per train ratio. If you look closely at the containers. Quite a bit are doublestacked high cubes. HC containers have a what's called a tiger stripe decal on the upper corners to denote/warn the container is a HC for clearance purposes. The one concern of running stacks under wire is to make sure there's enough of a gap between the OHL and top of the container to avoid arcing. So? What is the maximum height of the Indian double stacks? What is the height of the catenary wire where double stacks are being operated?
SD60MAC9500 BaltACD CMStPnP Up until now I did not think they could do this for some reason I did not think the loco would be able to reach the wire with the extra clearance.............which I guess begs the question on why we do not build electric railways to these clearance specs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVT8AivUnFU The engine of the first train does have what appears to be a excessively lengthy pantograph in order to reach from the engine to the wire. Most of the boxes were international ocean boxes, however, I saw a couple of cars that were higher than most. With the boxes appearing to be sitting on top of the car trucks, is it possible that India's double stacks require even more height clearence than the 20 foot 2 inch height that double stacked domestic boxes measure in North America, as the 20 foot 2 inch is achieved with the bottom layer of boxes having their floor below the top of the car trucks. Correct. India does not use wellcars. They went with flats to get a greater box per train ratio. If you look closely at the containers. Quite a bit are doublestacked high cubes. HC containers have a what's called a tiger stripe decal on the upper corners to denote/warn the container is a HC for clearance purposes. The one concern of running stacks under wire is to make sure there's enough of a gap between the OHL and top of the container to avoid arcing.
BaltACD CMStPnP Up until now I did not think they could do this for some reason I did not think the loco would be able to reach the wire with the extra clearance.............which I guess begs the question on why we do not build electric railways to these clearance specs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVT8AivUnFU The engine of the first train does have what appears to be a excessively lengthy pantograph in order to reach from the engine to the wire. Most of the boxes were international ocean boxes, however, I saw a couple of cars that were higher than most. With the boxes appearing to be sitting on top of the car trucks, is it possible that India's double stacks require even more height clearence than the 20 foot 2 inch height that double stacked domestic boxes measure in North America, as the 20 foot 2 inch is achieved with the bottom layer of boxes having their floor below the top of the car trucks.
CMStPnP Up until now I did not think they could do this for some reason I did not think the loco would be able to reach the wire with the extra clearance.............which I guess begs the question on why we do not build electric railways to these clearance specs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVT8AivUnFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVT8AivUnFU
The engine of the first train does have what appears to be a excessively lengthy pantograph in order to reach from the engine to the wire.
Most of the boxes were international ocean boxes, however, I saw a couple of cars that were higher than most. With the boxes appearing to be sitting on top of the car trucks, is it possible that India's double stacks require even more height clearence than the 20 foot 2 inch height that double stacked domestic boxes measure in North America, as the 20 foot 2 inch is achieved with the bottom layer of boxes having their floor below the top of the car trucks.
Correct. India does not use wellcars. They went with flats to get a greater box per train ratio. If you look closely at the containers. Quite a bit are doublestacked high cubes. HC containers have a what's called a tiger stripe decal on the upper corners to denote/warn the container is a HC for clearance purposes.
The one concern of running stacks under wire is to make sure there's enough of a gap between the OHL and top of the container to avoid arcing.
So? What is the maximum height of the Indian double stacks? What is the height of the catenary wire where double stacks are being operated?
IIRC it is around 25'10" for catenary wire. I believe the height for 2xHC's on IR COFC is 23'4"
Correct. India does not use wellcars. They went with flats to get a greater box per train ratio. If you look closely at the containers. Quite a bit are doublestacked high cubes which are 9'6" in height compared to 8'6" for a standard. HC containers have a what's called a tiger stripe decal on the upper corners to denote/warn the container is a HC for clearance purposes.
Wise words from MC who constantly deals with these things.
The catenary height is not necessarilly the issue. The bigger issue is the clearance height of existing overhead fixed infrastructure. (ie- bridges, tunnels and (to a limited degree) overhead wirelines. Older infrastructure, especially in the east, has nowhere near the clearance required. (Witness the recently completed east coast intermodal/ stack train clearance project)
(1) DOTs and highway engineers balk at the expense required to gain the extra height. (The 1958 model laws did not take catenary into consideration)....BALT's 20'-2" height for doublestacks is actually a violation of current state statute in several eastern states.
(2) USDOT & FRA set a minimum clearance height to accomodate double-stacks under catenary on the west coast in the 1980-1990's at 26'-4". Below that you get insulated protection on the underside of the bridge structures. Now largely ignored after the additional $$$ to raise and run-off blew up too many public works projects.
While I'm not what other electrified RR's used for standard height of the contact wire, the Milwaukee used 24 feet. This is more than enough for 3kVDC, while with 50kVAC you would probably want more like 25'. The electrification of So Cal freight RR's proposed in the 1990-92 timeframe was specifically intended to accomodate double stacks.
CMStPnPUp until now I did not think they could do this for some reason I did not think the loco would be able to reach the wire with the extra clearance.............which I guess begs the question on why we do not build electric railways to these clearance specs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVT8AivUnFU
It's done at some places. (Norristown, PA for example. NS has to use a small stretch of SEPTA tracks to get to their Morrisville Line.)
https://youtu.be/kScs926zy4A
I'm going to guess since most of the catenary was put in before doublestacks were a thing? Some eelctrified tracks didn't/or still don't allow autoracks under it.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Up until now I did not think they could do this for some reason I did not think the loco would be able to reach the wire with the extra clearance.............which I guess begs the question on why we do not build electric railways to these clearance specs?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.