There is money in this!

[croteaudd]

Over three decades ago the elevator brought me up to the patent attorney’s floor.  In his office, it took only a few seconds to draw him a new type of yard.  At seeing it for only two or three seconds more, he exclaimed, ‘There is money in this!’  What he didn’t know was that what I drew him already exists in another rail form, so can’t be patented!

Retirement is blissful and I no longer try to get people’s attention.  A fast sorting facility is only presented herein to get railroaders and railfans to think!  Can you imagine a whole train sorted in just a few hours and then the cars being on their way instead of cars being in a hump yard for 24 hours or more?

We all follow a dying industry!  In 30 years, I don’t think there will be boxcar traffic.  Nor petroleum tank cars.  So, the miracle sorting facility is eternally dead.  Intermodal is the next to die as ‘time value of money’ conscious shippers start zeroing in on time.

Have fun kicking all this around! (Nothing more will be said, no answering questions, no nothing!)

 

[BaltACD]

Nothing to see - nothing to comment upon.  Another dead idea.  No money in dead ideas.

[zugmann]

croteaudd

Have fun kicking all this around! (Nothing more will be said, no answering questions, no nothing!)

I don't even know what we would kick around.  What are we atalking about?

Meanwhile I just got done working in a yard jammed pack with cars for industries (with many more in the pipeline) that have no space - and that includes a fairly healthy number of boxcars. 

[Overmod]

croteaudd

Intermodal is the next to die as ‘time value of money’ conscious shippers start zeroing in on time.

Funny, "TVM-conscious" people have been going away from services providing faster service at higher cost to 'just-in-time' for decades.  And a distressing amount of domestic intermodal has apparently fallen into a 'race-to-the-bottom' commodity-rate trap.

Now yes, the place where the gains would be made is in faster 'interfacing' between moving modes.  I had a system in 1978 that would load and unload a 60-car rake of skeleton flats with ISO series 1 containers in under seven minutes.  (You could do stacks with it, too, but only in India...)  I had a similar system in the 1990s that would allow gang unloading and then gang-loading of trailers on kangaroo flats in not much longer time -- something immensely facilitated by autonomous low-profile yard dogs.

Your undiscussed yard system would have to be very competent indeed to beat what can be practically done with reasonable intermodal equipment.

[Backshop]

Like someone else said recently, COFC is no longer high value but just the new boxcar. The OP is getting really good with his vague "I know something that you don't" hints that he thinks we really care about---we don't.

[Gramp]

We just adopted a cat from our local humane society, and so I was looking into some pet food companies to determine which food I want to feed him. Interestingly one company has as part of its mission to increase use of trains rather than trucks for the transportation it uses. 

[zugmann]

croteaudd

Can you imagine a whole train sorted in just a few hours and then the cars being on their way instead of cars being in a hump yard for 24 hours or more?

I mean, we do that in my yard like every day.   Still don't know what this new yard design is.   Does it involve trebuchets? 

[CMStPnP]

"there is money in this"  can be read either as "it has potential" or it could mean  "I want those five minutes of my life back"

[SD60MAC9500]

??? Dying industry? Last I checked carload handles mostly commodities that don't require expedited transit or sorting... I mean we have SIT (Storage In Transit) for a reason..

You also say boxcar traffic is dying? Well considering the change in industrial production to smaller lightweight cube out widgets. What good is a boxcar? Boxcar's have settled into a nice niche handling: forest products, appliances, beverages, and longshelf life perishables.

Concerning your remark on tankcars hauling petroleum.. Not anytime soon. Nor ever... Petroleum outside of product, happens to be the building block comprising alot of your everday items.. 

 

[NittanyLion]

As long as there's someone that thinks "I'd rather get one huge delivery once a week instead of five small deliveries five times a week" or "I need 500 tons of this stuff and I need it all at once," it isn't a dying industry.

[SD70Dude]

CN, UP, GATX and TTX have all been taking delivery of brand new plug door boxcars over the past year........

[Euclid]

croteaudd

Over three decades ago the elevator brought me up to the patent attorney’s floor.  In his office, it took only a few seconds to draw him a new type of yard.  At seeing it for only two or three seconds more, he exclaimed, ‘There is money in this!’  What he didn’t know was that what I drew him already exists in another rail form, so can’t be patented!

Retirement is blissful and I no longer try to get people’s attention.  A fast sorting facility is only presented herein to get railroaders and railfans to think!  Can you imagine a whole train sorted in just a few hours and then the cars being on their way instead of cars being in a hump yard for 24 hours or more?

We all follow a dying industry!  In 30 years, I don’t think there will be boxcar traffic.  Nor petroleum tank cars.  So, the miracle sorting facility is eternally dead.  Intermodal is the next to die as ‘time value of money’ conscious shippers start zeroing in on time.

Have fun kicking all this around! (Nothing more will be said, no answering questions, no nothing!)

 

 

Why do you choose to answer no questions and say no more? 

 

The invention process starts by seeing a need.  Next it looks for ways to meet that need.  If it finds a viable way to fulfill the need, that would be an invention.  If the invention holds the promise of adequate financial reward, the inventor will want to patent it.  The patent process will start with a patent search to learn whether or not the invention has already been patented.  In so doing, the search will attempt to find all prior art that might conflict with the proposed new invention. 

 

The patent search results are not black and white on the point of whether your invention has already been patented.  Often there are ways to get around apparent or potential conflicts with pre-existing art.  Typically a patent attorney wants the business of writing a patent application for your invention, which would be the next step in developing your invention.  Therefore, in the patent search phase, the attorney will be motivated to give you a green light to proceed, rather than finding a fatal conflict between your invention and someone else’s prior invention.

 

So generally, I conclude that a patent attorney will be the last person who will tell your that your invention cannot be patented due to conflict with the prior art.  Also bear in mind that it is possible get a patent on an invention that will not sell or may not even work.  It is a common novice misperception that if they obtain a patent, that will act as an official Government Sanction of Approval of the invention, thus placing the inventor on the automatic road to riches. 

 

But if an inventor does go ahead with a patent search followed by a successful and relatively strong patent application, the inventor must next convince the world why they need the invention.  And as that marketing moves forward, the inventor will be also working to develop the design in drawings, illustrations, and a prototype or demonstration model of the invention.  At the same time, the invention will be designed for production manufacturing, and documented with cad models and engineering drawings.

 

Some people don’t feel a need for a patent because they know that if their invention proves itself by selling well, everyone will infringe on it despite the fact that it is patented.  So, they will just plan on fighting infringement in court.

 

Once the patent attorney writes a patent application on the invention, he/she will submit it to the U.S. Patent Office for review.  The Patent Office typically errors on the side of rejection, basically determining that the invention has no unique claims that are not already covered in someone else’s patent.  And these conflicting claims do not have to be for different inventions serving the same purpose.  They can be just near identical concepts for entirely different invention functions.  

 

So, it is common for the Patent Office to reject your first application.  But the process does not have to end there.  Your patent attorney will typically rewrite your patent claims in a way that gets around any objections of the Patent Office.  But the Patent Office might then once again deny you’re application.  So the patent attorney revises the application again.  

 

The patent search is not costly, but writing the patent application typically is expensive.    

[croteaudd]

Euclid

Why do you choose to answer no questions and say no more? 

 

Simply put, that ‘sorting facility’ (NOT a yard, that implies idleness) is so, so stupidly simple.  Unbelievably simple!  As the attorney asked, ‘Why don’t the railroads do this?’  My guess is nobody dares to spend the money to prove it would work, let alone even their coming up with such a stupidly simple facility!  (To cut costs to practically nothing relatively, a railroad could build an “HO model train sorting facility” to see if it really would work!)

To round out my perspectives, my vision involved (1) mainline operations, (2) labor peace methods, besides that (3) sorting facility.  And, for the record, two man crews are a must, just like two pilots are a most for commercial airlines!   

As exhibited by posts in this thread, railroaders (as in any industry) tend to be hostile towards change and economic reality discussions and prefer to be in a dream world.  You, Euclid, seem to be more civilized, and are to be commended for that!  Indelibly etched in my memory are photos of railroader’s disillusioned faces when all the famed passenger trains ended and Amtrak took over in 1971!  That reality was a hard pill to take for many within railroading, but reality is reality.

[tree68]

croteaudd

Simply put, that ‘sorting facility’ (NOT a yard, that implies idleness) is so, so stupidly simple. 

I know - you could even put gravity to work.  Push the cars up a small hill, and when they crest the hill, they can roll into tracks designated for specific destinations.  When the track is full, or when a train is scheduled to head to said destinations, they can pull all those cars and take them there!

If they don't want to make such a hill, then locomotives can push the cars into such designated tracks.  In fact, if they get a little speed up, the cars will roll to their destined track.

So simple!  It's a wonder no one has thought of it.

[zugmann]

Our yard can get full of "idle cars".  But that's because the customers are full (or closed gate) and aren't taking them.  What are we going to do with them?  There is literally nowhere else to go with them, unless we send them off the other direction for some kind of S.I.T. sort of thing. 

And if our yard gets full, the next bigger yard further up the pipeline may have to hold some of our cars becuase we don't have room, but they do. 

Just because a yard is full of cars doesn't mean the RR is doing something wrong.  That's a very narrow viewpoint. 

[zugmann]

croteaudd

As exhibited by posts in this thread, railroaders (as in any industry) tend to be hostile towards change and economic reality discussions and prefer to be in a dream world.

Says the person that has never worked in the industry (I'm guessing) but has this "dream idea" of a new yard but it's a secret that won't be discussed?   

 

 Go sell your plan and be rich if it's that great of an idea.  Stop wasting time playing victim acting like the only impediment of your plan is that "people don't understand".   

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

croteaudd

To round out my perspectives, my vision involved (1) mainline operations, (2) labor peace methods, besides that (3) sorting facility.  And, for the record, two man crews are a must, just like two pilots are a most for commercial airlines!   

I seriously doubt that the OP could attain labor peace when he's insisting on two-man crews.

[Backshop]

This thread got me thinking about the Electrification thread where many of us regular posters stated how old we were.  Most here seem to be enjoying their retirement years, even with the physical challenges.  A few though, are turning into bitter, grumpy old men who aren't happy with their life and what they did/didn't do.

[Ulrich]

I'll reserve judgement as I don't know what the idea is. But sometimes the best ideas come from out in left field, from people who aren't familiar with the industry and thus aren't encumbered with "how it's always been done".

Having said that, I wouldn't waste time and money on a patent. Instead get a prototype if you can and market the heck out of it. Patents will make the patent lawyers happy at your expense and that's about it. If your idea is any good it will be copied regardless of any patent..may as well forget about it, or maybe just state "patent pending" which costs nothing and may serve to discourage the laziest of the copycats. 

[Backshop]

Ulrich

I'll reserve judgement as I don't know what the idea is. 

Neither does anyone else.  Just like his new photographic technique that's also "the best", he doesn't share any details, if there are any.  It's a constant game of "I know something that you don't know" while not realizing that we don't really care that much.

[Euclid]

croteaudd

Over three decades ago the elevator brought me up to the patent attorney’s floor.  In his office, it took only a few seconds to draw him a new type of yard.  At seeing it for only two or three seconds more, he exclaimed, ‘There is money in this!’  What he didn’t know was that what I drew him already exists in another rail form, so can’t be patented!

 

Typically a patent attorney will maybe give an upfront consultation at no charge.  Then if you want to proceed, the attorney will set up a retainer account and then proceed with the work; estimating the cost ahead of doing the work as it goes from one phase to the next. 

 

The first phase will be the Patent Search to learn whether your invention has already been patented by someone else.  But this search is just cursory, and not intended to determine whether or not your invention can be patented.  This search is very unlikely to reach clear conclusion that says your invention cannot be patented.  Generally, all it does is find maybe a dozen patents that seem closest to the principles of your invention. 

 

If there are say 12 possibly conflicting patents found in the search, a more extensive search could have found many, many more.  There might be a thousand patents worth investigating for possible conflict with your invention.   So it is unlikely that the patent search would uncover something that would prevent a person from getting a patent on their invention. 

 

So I suspect that your patent attorney was just giving a general conclusion in what was a pre-work, free consultation session. 

 

There is another way to gain some patent protection without spending the full amount of money (and a lot of time) by filing what is called a Provisional Patent.  They will protect your propriety information for one year, and if you then file for a full patent, that new filling will be established as starting with the date of filing your Provisional Patent one year earlier. 

 

You can write that Provisional Patent yourself with the goal of just explaining your invention in ways people can understand it.  Then to file it, you send it to the Patent Office along with a check to pay a fee of around $75.  So, during that year of the Provisional Patent, you can show your invention to others that may have an interest in it. 

 

I agree with Ulrich that pursuing a patent may not be a good approach.  They cost a fortune, and the total price is basically unpredictable.  It depends on how many Patent Office rejections you will have to fight and work around.  I think there are a lot of wrong notions about patents and what they do for you. 

 

If I want to show someone a new idea, I ask them to sign a non-disclosure agreement.  But sometimes they don’t want to do that because they worry that you might come back in the future and claim they stole part of your idea.  So they don’t want to sign documents that show that they have formally reviewed your invention in the past. 

 

But all of this also depends on what your invention is and who the market is.  Trying to sell an invention to the railroad industry is especially challenging for a variety of unique reasons.  Many big companies will not only not sign your NDA, but they also will not look at your invention unless you have a patent on it.  In that case, they will first want to look at your patent and have their lawyers look at it too.  They do this for the same reason that some smaller companies will not sign an NDA. 

[CMStPnP]

I can't see any railroad stampeding to any innovation unless it was something they saw someone else do first.   Most militaristic organizations operate this way.   Change has to be forced upon them it is rarely a voluntary operation.

[croteaudd]

So that Backshop and others here won’t have convulsions or a possible heart attack and die on us, I attempted to diagram what that attorney was shown close to thirty-five years ago, but because the TRAINS website chronically malfunctioned, I gave up.  But picture two parallel tracks with a bunch of X double crossovers.  If multiple movements transpire simultaneously what tremendous time productivity could be had!

As noted previously, with Intermodal, railroads are no longer confined to rail access.  So, boxcar, tank car movements, and the like I don’t believe has a future.  Thus, it is now questionable how practical a ‘sorting facility’ as described above would be, especially as those mentioned shipments decline and the costs of the movements go up dramatically.

This likely will be my last post or one of my last posts, as posting and sharing ideas has radically changed in most areas in the last five years, and hostility is everywhere now and misinterpretation is the order of the day.  Besides, few seem to be left here at the TRAINS magazine forums.  For the civilized posters that remain, best wishes and it is hoped things go well with you!

 

[zugmann]

croteaudd

If multiple movements transpire simultaneously what tremendous time productivity could be had

I worked in yards that have that.   Not exactly a new invention. Quite the opposite, actually.   A lot of older yards have multiple crossovers, or switching leads in addition to ladders, many of the latter being compound.  Could easily have 4 crews working in an area at once. 

Many yards lost some of that in favor of simpler ladders with larger switches (cars/engines getting longer and heavier), less to maintain, blah blah blah.   

croteaudd

This likely will be my last post or one of my last posts, as posting and sharing ideas has radically changed in most areas in the last five years, and hostility is everywhere now and misinterpretation is the order of the day.  Besides, few seem to be left here at the TRAINS magazine forums.  For the civilized posters that remain, best wishes and it is hoped things go well with you!

You keep saying that, yet you keep posting.  If you're going to go, just go.  Or stay.  Nobody really cares. 

 

[Euclid]

High capacity multiple-stage railway switching yard

 

It looks like there is plenty of development under way to make railroad switching yards more efficient.  Here is a Patent reference with a lot of detail, but a little hard to follow.  What is needed is highly detailed animation that shows what is happening with all the moves; accompanied by clearly explained narration at each step.  This type of explanation should also show how this new system differs from the current state of the art. 

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2002042142A1/en

 

 

Mechanism for switching, classifying and segregating railroad cars

 

Here is another system that allows railcars to be separated from cuts by being uncoupled and shifted transversely from one track to another.  This is a radical departure in yard switching.  I guess it is analogous to a railroad transfer table, to some extent.   

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US2976817

[Overmod]

I would need to see this diagrammed to see where the advantages in the 'multiple movements' are, but I speculate that the 'other railroad context' would be CTC.

The immediate applicability of this is not in 'marshaling trains' but in making up ordered platoons of those Parallel Systems autonomous boxcars.  I would dust this idea off and see if there is a 'fit' with some of the things their current paradigm hasn't worked out yet.

The other thing this needs is a well-designed 'autonomous' counterpart in each of the switches.  These will have to work many times more frequently than 'regular' yard switches and would be difficult to 'route-interlock' in the ways current complicated track layouts need to do to be safe.  What you will have is multiple autonomously-guided movements that will have to have their switches thrown as they go, but coordinated on a larger scale for safety and for dealing with anomalous conditions (power, derailment, weather, etc.)

[oltmannd]

zugmann

I worked in yards that have that.   Not exactly a new invention. Quite the opposite, actually.   A lot of older yards have multiple crossovers, or switching leads in addition to ladders, many of the latter being compound.  Could easily have 4 crews working in an area at once. 

Yep.  The dual hump at the "why, exactly did we build this? Moorman hump yard" in Bellevue OH was supposed to accomodate two trains humping at once with a crossover on the down hill portion of the hump.

Worked great in process simulations.  Never worked in practice.  Why?  Not for any reason I could comprehend or understand.  So, there's that.

[BaltACD]

Euclid

High capacity multiple-stage railway switching yard

 

It looks like there is plenty of development under way to make railroad switching yards more efficient.  Here is a Patent reference with a lot of detail, but a little hard to follow.  What is needed is highly detailed animation that shows what is happening with all the moves; accompanied by clearly explained narration at each step.  This type of explanation should also show how this new system differs from the current state of the art. 

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2002042142A1/en

 

Worked with Edwin R. (Chip) Kraft in Baltimore.  Smart, maybe too smart for railroading operations.

[SD70Dude]

Our Symington (Winnipeg) and MacMillan (Toronto) hump yards are both duals.  And they survived Hunter Harrison's rampage up here.  Must be pretty efficient. 

I've got to say that I'm a bit disappointed.  I was expecting something more creative, perhaps a giant 'hand of God' in the sky.  You know, the fastest way to switch on a HO scale layout.........

[blue streak 1]

Here is a thought.  How many classification yards are there in North America that receives cars from other yards (n)?  If a major RR yard had (n) classification tracks then each track would be able to have blocks that would only be subject to block swaping to final yard. Of course various tracks for RIP, Storage, trim, departure, etc would be  needed. No additional classification of car(s) until reaching final yard.

Not too practicl. Even with another set of yard tracks maybe a mile beyond the first yard set way too many switches and other infrastructure?