futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote: GP40-2 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Lest we forget, at one time in this country fast freights were approaching 100 mph sustained speeds using 1930's technology. If that trend had continued, who's to say we wouldn't have TGV-type speeds on our freight railroads?100 MPH sustained speed? For freight in the 1930's? That is a rather absurd statement.Do you even have a concept of the amount of horsepower needed to allow a lightweight freight of say 4000-4500 tons to maintain 100 MPH? Heck, the number of Passenger Trains that could run that fast was quite small, mostly lightweight or semi-lightweights, with train weights of 500 - 600 tons. Thus the pretextualization of "approaching 100 mph". Example - The Hiawatha's could exceed 100 mph for some stretches with steam and heavyweight equipment. Surely someone somewhere could visualize the concept of maximizing time freights, assuming he wasn't standing in a soup line. Keep in mind this was at a time when air liners and OTR trucking were still in their infancy, and US highways had been built for Model T's, not Corvettes.
beaulieu wrote: GP40-2 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Lest we forget, at one time in this country fast freights were approaching 100 mph sustained speeds using 1930's technology. If that trend had continued, who's to say we wouldn't have TGV-type speeds on our freight railroads?100 MPH sustained speed? For freight in the 1930's? That is a rather absurd statement.Do you even have a concept of the amount of horsepower needed to allow a lightweight freight of say 4000-4500 tons to maintain 100 MPH? Heck, the number of Passenger Trains that could run that fast was quite small, mostly lightweight or semi-lightweights, with train weights of 500 - 600 tons.
GP40-2 wrote: futuremodal wrote: Lest we forget, at one time in this country fast freights were approaching 100 mph sustained speeds using 1930's technology. If that trend had continued, who's to say we wouldn't have TGV-type speeds on our freight railroads?100 MPH sustained speed? For freight in the 1930's? That is a rather absurd statement.Do you even have a concept of the amount of horsepower needed to allow a lightweight freight of say 4000-4500 tons to maintain 100 MPH?
futuremodal wrote: Lest we forget, at one time in this country fast freights were approaching 100 mph sustained speeds using 1930's technology. If that trend had continued, who's to say we wouldn't have TGV-type speeds on our freight railroads?
Lest we forget, at one time in this country fast freights were approaching 100 mph sustained speeds using 1930's technology. If that trend had continued, who's to say we wouldn't have TGV-type speeds on our freight railroads?
100 MPH sustained speed? For freight in the 1930's? That is a rather absurd statement.
Do you even have a concept of the amount of horsepower needed to allow a lightweight freight of say 4000-4500 tons to maintain 100 MPH?
Heck, the number of Passenger Trains that could run that fast was quite small, mostly lightweight or semi-lightweights, with train weights of 500 - 600 tons.
Thus the pretextualization of "approaching 100 mph". Example - The Hiawatha's could exceed 100 mph for some stretches with steam and heavyweight equipment. Surely someone somewhere could visualize the concept of maximizing time freights, assuming he wasn't standing in a soup line. Keep in mind this was at a time when air liners and OTR trucking were still in their infancy, and US highways had been built for Model T's, not Corvettes.
The C&NW's "400" was the service that used heavyweight cars at first. They didn't need to reach 100 mph in sprints, as they had fewer slow restrictions that had to be offset by very fast running.
Consider this: In the 1930's did any rail execs conceive of the possibility of losing mail contracts to air carriers? Did they conceive of losing the hauling of consumer goods to trucks? My guess is probaby not - they seemed focussed on maximum ton miles/minimum train miles, e.g. essentially drag freights, and customer satisfaction be damned.
Actually I don't think very many of their customers expected faster service, and there was a whole lot less high value commodities moved other than perishables.
It was true in 1930 and it's true today: Railroads have the theoretical surface speed advantage over all other surface transport modes, and they have the max tonnage advantage over all but water-borne carriers. This theorectical combination of being able to move lots of tonnage at high surface speeds is one big advantage which has never been exploited as it logically should. All these HSR examples in Europe, Japan and elsewhere should give a hint of the potential for rail freight transport to someone in the railroad business, someone other than a UPS or FedEx. Should, but doesn't.
Only a parcels carrier would be interested in high speed, and only someone selling a premium service (Air replacement) would be interested in very high-speeds (140 mph plus). Fedex is talking to SNCF, and DHL is talking to DB. but I give either service a 10 percent chance of happening or less. The problem is always price and service what will it cost Fedex or DHL and what can they get for their money. Can they fill one trainset regularly, about what revenue will it produce, what are they capital and operational costs going to be and what will be their ROI. Fedex and DHL will look at it just like the railroads do. In the French case, SNCF would either want Fedex to buy the trainset(s) that would be used, or lock them into a contract long enough to cover the cost of the trainset(s). SNCF had done a notional design for a parcel trainset based on the Duplex design, capacity would be 40-10m3 containers similar to those used on 747s but shaped for the Duplex, and a weight capacity of 100 metric tonnes (110 US tons). At maximum weight the load must be spaced out very evenly along the trainset.
I might add that DHL is running an overnight 100 mph. Intermodal in Germany, from their terminal in Berlin to their terminal in the Ruhr. In none of their other German markets does 100 mph. produce a benefit enough to offset the higher premium. For example in the Berlin - Main (Frankfurt) market a train leaving after the evening sort and traveling at 100 mph whenever possible will arrive too late for the sort in the next morning, so next day stuff moves by air, everything else by regular Intermodal (75 mph max.). Going faster than 100 mph. would require special equipment, pushing the cost too high. The 100 mph Intermodal uses cars only slightly different from regular COFC cars, no trailers are used only swapbodies, but these are as common as trailers on European highways, so not a problem there, the freight cars require higher performance bogies (trucks) and more maintenance, but not an excessive amount. Above that speed and you will have to optimize your equipment more to the train, i.e. the cars will have to look like passenger cars and be as streamlined, etc.
If I understand correctly, the only reasons that the Hiawatha's had to slow below 100 mph was because the section of track couldn't handle 100+mph running. The cars used on the Hiawatha's were home-built lightweights, which were no where near as light as the early diesel streamliners. Remember that the Pioneer Zephyr hit 100+ mph with only 600 hp and a modern passenger steamer could put out 4000+ hp.
The Pennsy S1 could haul more than a dozen heavyweight cars at over 100mph and the T-1's often reached 125 mph in service.
Figure just about any 4-8-4 could pull 2,000 tons at 60+ mph.
futuremodal wrote: Bi-modal technology transcends national parochialism. US-style TOFC (as prefered by UPS)wouldn't fit in Europe, but RoadRailer and RailRunner would.
Bi-modal technology transcends national parochialism. US-style TOFC (as prefered by UPS)wouldn't fit in Europe, but RoadRailer and RailRunner would.
The reminder about Roadrailer in Europe may explain the deep seated animosity between TX Logistik and DB. TX Logistik received its German Railway operating license from the EBA on December 6th, 2001. Also in December 2001, TX Logistik and its jointly owned subsidiary NetLog bought Bayerische Trailerzug Geselleschaft (BTZ the Roadrailer Operator) from Stinnes AG (DB) and Intercontainer Austria (ÖBB). BTZ didn't operate for too long after the sale, and its absolutely certain that TX Logistiks didn't buy the company to close it, either the economics weren't what TX Logistiks expected, or the ÖBB wouldn't cooperate, something happened. Either move would fit with DB's actions to any railroad that would try to pick up anything more than table scraps. DB recently won a battle against major rival Rail4Chem, over rates for traction electricity, as a result the head of Rail4Chem, Matthias Raith, was forced to resign by his board. SBB Cargo and DB are constantly making moves and counter moves against each other, while TX Logistiks is slowly taking bites out of DB's share of the automotive market. And now the shippers are running their own version of "The Contender" for someone new to take on DB, newcomers RTS Rail and Hector Rail are adding locomotives and applying for German licenses, WLB and LTE are in the Austrian corner taking instructions, while Del Fungo Giera and Seco Rail have decided to take on lighter weight SNCF Fret, in the mean time Euro Cargo Rail (EW&S aka CN) has found Britain very tough, SNCF Fret not tough enough, maybe DB will prove to be just right. Trenitalia has a new manager and new promoter, check back in a year and they might be ready, or not. It looks to be a hell of a fight.
Context, trollboy.
GP40-2 wrote: futuremodal wrote:Lest we forget, at one time in this country fast freights were approaching 100 mph sustained speeds using 1930's technology. If that trend had continued, who's to say we wouldn't have TGV-type speeds on our freight railroads?100 MPH sustained speed? For freight in the 1930's? That is a rather absurd statement.Do you even have a concept of the amount of horsepower needed to allow a lightweight freight of say 4000-4500 tons to maintain 100 MPH?
futuremodal wrote:Lest we forget, at one time in this country fast freights were approaching 100 mph sustained speeds using 1930's technology. If that trend had continued, who's to say we wouldn't have TGV-type speeds on our freight railroads?
Decent video available on the MSNBC website, requires Internet Explorer.
MSNBC Video
futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote: futuremodal wrote: Bi-modal technology transcends national parochialism. US-style TOFC (as prefered by UPS)wouldn't fit in Europe, but RoadRailer and RailRunner would.You know next to nothing about European railfreight. I pity you, Johnny B. You seem to have a desire to go out of your way to personally insult me any chance you get, then you go off and pretty much verify what I said in the first place. As follows......It would be next to impossible to get Roadrailer or Railrunner equipment approved in most European countries. Really? Hmmmmm....... jclass wrote: Roadrailer on Brenner line between Innsbruck, Austria and Italy. Besides, what you're really stating is not that bi-modal won't work technologically, it's that certain European countries might arbitrarily prohibit it's use. From what I know about European railfreight from my good friends here on the forum including a certain John Beaulieu is that clearances are generally lower than the NA counterparts. That's why trailer-on-spine car aka US-style TOFC won't work there, and also why bi-modal technology is a perfect fit.US styled TOFC is quite common in Europe, albeit with organizational differences. With the exception of Finland they need well cars to transport semi-trailers low enough to clear cantenary, but it is commonly done. Kombiverkehr (a subsidiary of Stinnes and hence DB), Hupac, and Intercontainer are the biggest operators, with networks covering most of Europe.Again, not to be pedantic, but most US-style TOFC runs on spine cars or adapted flat cars, e.g. high platforms, not well cars. What you're saying here is that current US-style TOFC (as I've just described) won't work in most of Europe with the exception of Finland. Trailer-in-wellcar is common in Europe, not so common in NA. That's not an organizational difference, it's a technical difference.
beaulieu wrote: futuremodal wrote: Bi-modal technology transcends national parochialism. US-style TOFC (as prefered by UPS)wouldn't fit in Europe, but RoadRailer and RailRunner would.You know next to nothing about European railfreight.
You know next to nothing about European railfreight.
I pity you, Johnny B. You seem to have a desire to go out of your way to personally insult me any chance you get, then you go off and pretty much verify what I said in the first place. As follows......
It would be next to impossible to get Roadrailer or Railrunner equipment approved in most European countries.
Really? Hmmmmm.......
jclass wrote: Roadrailer on Brenner line between Innsbruck, Austria and Italy.
Roadrailer on Brenner line between Innsbruck, Austria and Italy.
Besides, what you're really stating is not that bi-modal won't work technologically, it's that certain European countries might arbitrarily prohibit it's use. From what I know about European railfreight from my good friends here on the forum including a certain John Beaulieu is that clearances are generally lower than the NA counterparts. That's why trailer-on-spine car aka US-style TOFC won't work there, and also why bi-modal technology is a perfect fit.
US styled TOFC is quite common in Europe, albeit with organizational differences. With the exception of Finland they need well cars to transport semi-trailers low enough to clear cantenary, but it is commonly done. Kombiverkehr (a subsidiary of Stinnes and hence DB), Hupac, and Intercontainer are the biggest operators, with networks covering most of Europe.
Again, not to be pedantic, but most US-style TOFC runs on spine cars or adapted flat cars, e.g. high platforms, not well cars. What you're saying here is that current US-style TOFC (as I've just described) won't work in most of Europe with the exception of Finland. Trailer-in-wellcar is common in Europe, not so common in NA.
That's not an organizational difference, it's a technical difference.
The difference is that in Europe, Intermodal is all "Hook and Haul". The railroads have nothing to do with marketing. The Railways provide a Driver, a Locomotive,sometimes the wagons, and arrange for a schedule (train pathing), and the IMs would like to take over the latter. In the US Z-LACCHI is a BNSF train from LA to Chicago, if you want to put your trailer on it you contact BNSF. In Europe Train# 43075 is a Hupac Intermodal from Duisburg to Milan, it will have a SBB Cargo locomotive on the front, but if you call SBB Cargo they will tell you to contact Hupac to put your trailer on it. Its followed to Milan by #42021 also a Hupac train but from Cologne with a Railion (DB) locomotive pulling it.
Re: Roadrailer
Interesting. In 2002 the company BTZ is sold to a joint venture of TX Logistiks and Netlog AG, and then it disappears. Roadrailers don't show on the 2005 freight schedule I have for the Brenner Pass, and for that matter, any of the German or Swiss schedules either. Its dead in Western Europe now.
What I am saying Dave, is that in Europe, the railroads are less able to call the tune, and are being forced to ask how high when the shipper says jump. They must adapt to the trucks not the other way round. The Europeans (except the Swiss) are dallying with the idea of the Gigaliner, a 60 metric tonne truck on the autobahns and motorways, the railways are scared to death about this, as they should be. Some countries are pinning their hopes on the Rolling Highway, which moves complete trucks, but at very high tare, and cost. Two years ago European Governments were gung-ho on conversion from road to railway, now they are distracted and running in all directions, witness the "Motorways of the Sea" program, etc.
The regular in-service operating speed for the TGV is 186mph.
As to why it was done - well the French are somewhat obsessional about maintaining the rail speed record and have held it, by and large, for the last 60 years! There are probably plenty of better technical reasons than that but after all, nobody needed to climb Everest.
Safety Valve - it's worth remembering that these trains run almost exclusively on dedicated tracks, with in cab signalling and very secure perimeter fencing. In populated areas the tracks run behind huge concrete walls to keep the sound in and the uninvited out.
The safety record of the TGV is phenomenal - a reflection of the fact that maintenance and control are fully commensurate with the speed of the operation.
Murphy Siding wrote: Other than making headlines, what are they hoping to accomplish with this?
Other than making headlines, what are they hoping to accomplish with this?
http://www.record2007.com/site/index_en.php
The Catenary needs to be changed to a flying type if it should survive sustained speeds above 200 mph, looking at the pantograph skipping along the wire in the video I linked here makes me wonder at which point does the pantograph fail to fly close to the wire long enough to transfer any useable electricity to the locomotive and starve the entire train?
The wheels were amazing, the trackwork flawless at those speeds. At which level of speed does the system begin to fail? The heat build up must be awesome. What of the ballast? At those speeds or even higher would individual rocks need to be glued down? You laugh but that dust being kicked up at those speeds looks like one you wont want near your car or you. How are you going to dissapate the braking heat should you toss the anchor out at those speeds?
The people were comfortable enough but the side to side motion can make a person sick if amplified long and often enough. At what level does the suspension fail to provide an acceptable structural support at these speeds or even faster?
Coming out of the low speeds into high speeds require huge amounts of horsepower. The technology to generate the power to move an object at X speed is ALOT more than one that chugs along at 50 mph. I recall from trucking that my required horsepower availible to the wheels needed to be double if not quadrupled to maintain 110+ mph over 55. Any change in grade or curve dramatically loads the engines. At what point does the speed becomes so great as not to be sustainable?
The carbodies, they need to be stout enough to fly at these speeds. Airliners do it all the time with a aluminum tube at twice or three times cruise speeds in temperatures low enough to render normal steels brittle. Not only these tubes must with stand the stress they need to stand up to internal pressurization. We are already pressurizing trains at very high altitudes. Where is the limit at which the stresses along the three dimensions and the G forces become unsafe?
Then you ask about why we do these speed records? because we can and will.
The lessons learned will only improve our safety at very high speeds in the future.
Personally anything over 150 mph on land qualifies as flight because I cannot see far enough down the ground to decide if that deer is off to one side or on the road in time to do anything about it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
wallyworld wrote:On board videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXG-zrtwiCY&mode=related&search=
On board video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXG-zrtwiCY&mode=related&search=
That may be an on baord video of a TGV but compared to the video from the record breaking run that you can get to from the top right of the BBC page it looks down right pedestrian.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6521295.stm
Found a couple more
and this one (silent on my computer0 shows the mofifications they made to the train
http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/train/video/x1kg63_la-rame-v150
Doesn't look like it is that fast. Maybe you have to be there.
And they still haven't solved the bug on the windshield problem, either.
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
futuremodal wrote:Bi-modal technology transcends national parochialism. US-style TOFC (as prefered by UPS)wouldn't fit in Europe, but RoadRailer and RailRunner would.
You know next to nothing about European railfreight. It would be next to impossible to get Roadrailer or Railrunner equipment approved in most European countries. US styled TOFC is quite common in Europe, albeit with organizational differences. With the exception of Finland they need well cars to transport semi-trailers low enough to clear cantenary, but it is commonly done. Kombiverkehr (a subsidiary of Stinnes and hence DB), Hupac, and Intercontainer are the biggest operators, with networks covering most of Europe.
Here is a link to Hupac's photo section, as you can see DHL is a big Hupac customer. There are also photos illustrating European well wagons for transporting standard semi-trailers.
Hupac photos
rtstasiak wrote:This is especially meaningful to me, since I live and work within two miles of the old NYC Water Level Route east of Buffalo, NY where steam locomotive #999 made its unofficial 112.5 mph run one century ago. #999's successors with microprocessor regulated high technology diesels are lucky to achieve 50 to 80 mph and stay on the track--assuming they get enough clear signals and good track. My cap is off to the French and to the Vanderbilts for jobs well done.
Right, and SNCF Fret expects to handle 7 percent LESS freight this year than they handled last year, and they expect to lose 230 million Euros doing it. Nothing to emulate there.
futuremodal wrote: 1435mm wrote: futuremodal wrote: UPS, FedEx, and DHL are all competitors in the same market, despite organizational nuances. You're quite sure of that? "Regional LTL" is not a nuance. The business models strike me and a lot of other people I work with in shipping as very different. Traffic World has filled a lot of pages describing the difference.S. Hadid I know that I can utilize UPS, FedEx, or DHL (yeah okay, we can include the Post Office) if I want to ship a package from Seattle to Chicago, and I have the options of overnight, one day, two day, etc. As a client I don't know and don't care how they do it, as long as it gets there when promised.
1435mm wrote: futuremodal wrote: UPS, FedEx, and DHL are all competitors in the same market, despite organizational nuances. You're quite sure of that? "Regional LTL" is not a nuance. The business models strike me and a lot of other people I work with in shipping as very different. Traffic World has filled a lot of pages describing the difference.S. Hadid
futuremodal wrote: UPS, FedEx, and DHL are all competitors in the same market, despite organizational nuances.
UPS, FedEx, and DHL are all competitors in the same market, despite organizational nuances.
You're quite sure of that? "Regional LTL" is not a nuance. The business models strike me and a lot of other people I work with in shipping as very different. Traffic World has filled a lot of pages describing the difference.
S. Hadid
I know that I can utilize UPS, FedEx, or DHL (yeah okay, we can include the Post Office) if I want to ship a package from Seattle to Chicago, and I have the options of overnight, one day, two day, etc. As a client I don't know and don't care how they do it, as long as it gets there when promised.
Sure, but try Fedex Ground service from Seattle to Coulee City,WA. With UPS and USPS no problem next day, with Fedex you get the message 1-day service, with a footnote that delivery may take 1 or 2 extra days. The reason is that Fedex ground is a franchised service. The contractors will accumulate packages until there is enough of a load to justify driving to Coulee City. BTW - it is common to see the Fedex Ground truck drop off packages at the Post Office and let the Post Office make the final delivery in Rural areas.
It is the delivery service that has to decide how best to get that package where and when using whichever mode or modal combination fits best, using the cost/benefit models they have developed. UPS sees the current US rail system and decides they can work with that. FedEx sees the current US rail system and decides they won't touch it. Both companies have expressed a wishful desire to have greater transit speeds via ground transport.If you build it, they will come......
It is the delivery service that has to decide how best to get that package where and when using whichever mode or modal combination fits best, using the cost/benefit models they have developed. UPS sees the current US rail system and decides they can work with that. FedEx sees the current US rail system and decides they won't touch it. Both companies have expressed a wishful desire to have greater transit speeds via ground transport.
If you build it, they will come......
.....W W: Interesting image of the 21th century world at night....I can even pick out our medium size city of Muncie on it. I have seen similar images before and as shown on this one too, the North Korean half of their peninsula shows their way of life.....or probably, better yet, lack of....
Quentin
ondrek wrote:There is another article about it here:TGV Kevin
There is another article about it here:
TGV
Kevin
THE BBC have a video
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.