Merging as cars do, more likely merge and couple as the last vehicle. Not familiar with actual mechanics of current technology for switching or coupling, but sounds like what is out there is archaic. Part of Toyota’s recent problems involved braking systems that were electronically connected to brake pedal instead of hydraulics. Each SF Units is already equipped, and aggregate braking of coupled Units is electronically synchronized. How many times will a train be switched between say Baltimore and NY? At what speed can a train switch?
So Don, is the Northeast corridor freight capacity yielding to passage service? From you statement, sounds like more freight would choose rail instead of asphalt, but it is restricted due to higher rates set by passenger service? If that is the case, then clearly shortage of rail capacity. Overall the SFU will achieve more capacity on existing rails because station stop times are eliminated and additional entry/exits point are easily added due to intermodal quality of SF Unit. Units can carry passengers or freight as function of track rationing rates. Heavy coal trains and other heavy freight that is not profitable on SFU would also need consideration as hindrance to SF Unit free flow.
Intermodal128
intermodal128 Yes government involvement in highway does provide more freedom to pursue docking, but too many varibles and cars get in the way. The tracks are there and one dimensional where cars are 3 dimensional. The SF Unit's ability to easily enter and exit tracks lessens need for siding. Last night watched a CSX coal train lumber back from Norfolk empty heading to western mines. Only train that passed during 1.5 hours while I was there. How often do these things travel in the North East coridor? I imagine coal train fequency is a clear function of power plants operating near their electric market. National energy policy to transport electricity by transmission line instead of in coal cars plays into things.
Yes government involvement in highway does provide more freedom to pursue docking, but too many varibles and cars get in the way. The tracks are there and one dimensional where cars are 3 dimensional.
The SF Unit's ability to easily enter and exit tracks lessens need for siding.
Last night watched a CSX coal train lumber back from Norfolk empty heading to western mines. Only train that passed during 1.5 hours while I was there. How often do these things travel in the North East coridor? I imagine coal train fequency is a clear function of power plants operating near their electric market. National energy policy to transport electricity by transmission line instead of in coal cars plays into things.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Aside from the risk factor involved if the lead train has to go into emergency braking, the mechanical factors of coupling on the fly have not really been addressed. If the equipment has conventional air brakes, how do you connect the air line? Also, connecting the m.u. lines has to be considered although a system similar to some rapid transit equipment might work. I also don't think that intermodal128 has any idea of the time involved for even a power switch to be aligned from one route to the other, plus clearing the signals.
This Split Flxible Unit concept has a couple other flaws: will there be another unit to couple to; and wouldn't closely following units be subject to slowing to create the necessary gap for the entering or leaving vehicle?
intermodal128 I would imagine that siding are availible at some point to pass the slow freight.
I would imagine that siding are availible at some point to pass the slow freight.
intermodal128 Perfect world...once the Units enter the track system, they become mathmatically perfect because there would be codes required to enter the track system governing the position and height of coupling. It is absolutly consistent because the steel rails create a point of coupling that is always in the same place vertically and hortizontally. Speed ie time is the only variable.
Perfect world...once the Units enter the track system, they become mathmatically perfect because there would be codes required to enter the track system governing the position and height of coupling. It is absolutly consistent because the steel rails create a point of coupling that is always in the same place vertically and hortizontally. Speed ie time is the only variable.
If SFU is caught behind something else, a slow freight train, that would indicate congestion of frieght trains that are so close together it demostrate a total lack of capacity. If it is behind another SFU then passengers move between coupled cars and the exiting units drop off at the station while SFU train continues. I would imagine that siding are availible at some point to pass the slow freight.
These SF Units are designed to couple. We can do it in outerspace, we can do it on solid one dimensional steel rails.
Get real!! The passenger train may be ahead of the coal train but it has to be behind something else. Coupling at speed is an accident waiting to happen (and probably will) since it has to assume that the lead train will not have to stop for anything. Your operating concept is based on a perfect world in which everything works exactly as intended.
Yes. The issue of open access and capacity and the difference between rail, highway and air is steering ie switching. The devil is in the details. How does the light high speed SFU pass the 40 mph coal train?
First perhaps incorrect assumption is the coal train a fading relic in congested corridors and lesser freight trains are capable of increased speed? Not that this eliminates the problem in any way, but it is part of a national energy policy reflecting the market and comprehensive approach, and general track infrastructure improvement.
Second assumption is that increasing coal speed from 40 to 70 is minimal fuel increase solved by tech advances holding safety constant in the long run. So how does a high speed SFU pass a 70mph freight train?
Answers…..
First; is the same 150 year industry standard of siding approaching 3 to 4 parallel tracks, but expensive in the congested corridors with limited space.
Second; the SFU simply stays ahead of the coal train and stays the hell out of the way. Because the SFU does not stop at stations, Units exiting and entering the tracks easily, the coal train never catches up.
Since a freight “train” is moving at a constant speed the time caught behind it can be calculated and decision to exit tracks in favor of highway or to move up start time by SF Units can be adjusted to get out in front. On a 30 mile stretch between sidings, behind a train doing 60mph instead of 120mph, the time cost is 15 minutes. The Units, easily able to enter and exit the rails, are free handle this as they see fit. It becomes a mathematical calculation because tracks are one dimensional, with losers being responsible for their own delay.
This will lead to SF Units competing for space in front of the train, which becomes a per density and rationing calculation based on a mathematical program that the airline industry uses.
OK. Sort of. But, NY-DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Macon-Jacksonville is on the high speed map. That suggests to me that the shorter, intermediate markets are what would make HSR go in the east.
intermodal128 I was first terrified over addressing the first sets of questions about capacity and bidding for space. The last two statements allow for the further reaching solution concerning SFU discussed in earlier post. I present this…….instead of thinking about rail travel as incremental trains bidding for space on tracks and stations, try to imagine continuous flow of SF units that merge and exit the rails without stopping. While Amtrak and the Acela fade into depreciation the space between trains, the excess capacity, can be utilized as SF units enter and exit the rails without needing to stop or interfere with existing rolling stock. The fixed rail is the key to regulating capacity as units merge because it is one dimensional allowing computer programs and GPS can regulate the flow. The ultimate problem, once safety is engineered, would be possibility of having bumper to bumper jams. But would that be actually a sign of success and a good problem to finally have? Intermodal128
Passenger markets are trip time driven. Coal shipments are fuel cost driven. So, the sweet spot for passenger travel may be 110 mph and for coal, 40 mph on the same lane. Making both go 70 mph could mean you miss both markets and wind up with nothing.
That makes planning and regulating the flow of trains much more difficult than for highway and air.
I think the kind of system you are talking about is best adapted to highways. The only difference between a highway and railroad is the fixed guideway, so the only piece that needs automating is the steering. Not insurmountable - that's been around in analog form since the 1960s. .The only hard science difference is rolling resistance - some targeted R&D could close that gap a bit.
oltmannd intermodal128: I read up on the 1980 Staggers Act and conclude that it freed railroads to utilize their monopoly to operate at market rates and dump costly assets to achieve profits. Regulation had certainly forced them into a hole and with rising completion from air and interstate something had to give before they went bankrupt. Deregulation ultimate goal is to encourage innovation while preserving the public goal. It is confused with monopoly power because monopolies can both be in pursuit of public interest or a detrimental to it. While I as an entrepreneur can put a bus on the highway or a plane in an airport, I cannot put a train on the rails. There is a market niche that I am prevented from entering and bringing competitive innovation, which is public bad. The efficient nature of transporting freight is possibly a public good. We should be able to have both these public goods: innovation (free market) and efficient transportation by freeing up the one dimensional steel rails. Intermodal128 Would your vision allow any rail operator to operate on Amtrak's Northeast corridor? If I'm CSX and I want to run my intermodal train from Washington DC to North Jersey departing Washington DC at 6AM (so I can make my 10AM availability in North Jersey) that should be OK? What if that conflicts with the 6AM Amtrak Acela departure? Who gets that slot? High bidder? CSX would win. What if more more operators show up with trains than the railroad can accomodate? Who's the odd man out? What do the "denied" trains do? How and where are expansion projects done? How do you fund them? How do you know you picked the best ones? The ROW owner wouldn't generally have his finger on the pulse of the operators' markets.... A railroad is considerably more complicated to operate than a highway or an airport....for a whole host of reasons, but most revolve around the nature of the fixed guideway. You want to stop innovation on the RR right in its tracks? Open access is the best way to do it!
intermodal128: I read up on the 1980 Staggers Act and conclude that it freed railroads to utilize their monopoly to operate at market rates and dump costly assets to achieve profits. Regulation had certainly forced them into a hole and with rising completion from air and interstate something had to give before they went bankrupt. Deregulation ultimate goal is to encourage innovation while preserving the public goal. It is confused with monopoly power because monopolies can both be in pursuit of public interest or a detrimental to it. While I as an entrepreneur can put a bus on the highway or a plane in an airport, I cannot put a train on the rails. There is a market niche that I am prevented from entering and bringing competitive innovation, which is public bad. The efficient nature of transporting freight is possibly a public good. We should be able to have both these public goods: innovation (free market) and efficient transportation by freeing up the one dimensional steel rails. Intermodal128
What if that conflicts with the 6AM Amtrak Acela departure? Who gets that slot? High bidder? CSX would win.
What if more more operators show up with trains than the railroad can accomodate? Who's the odd man out? What do the "denied" trains do?
How and where are expansion projects done? How do you fund them? How do you know you picked the best ones? The ROW owner wouldn't generally have his finger on the pulse of the operators' markets....
A railroad is considerably more complicated to operate than a highway or an airport....for a whole host of reasons, but most revolve around the nature of the fixed guideway.
You want to stop innovation on the RR right in its tracks? Open access is the best way to do it!
I think we have already hit the limits of "Open Access" with the recent regional 110 MPH train corridors deal. Trains Magazine is reporting that some railroads are getting cold feet about accepting the government money to upgrade their own lines.
It seems that the gummint wants hard performance guarantees for on-time passenger trains from the host railroads, and I can see why, given the by-gosh-and-by-golly on-time performance of much of the Amtrak network and the recent dustup about poor on-time performance of the upgraded Illinois trains.
The railroads are turning around and saying, "There is a lot of capacity on our network now, but what happens when the economy picks up and traffic levels are back up to normal."
It has long been an article of faith and of conviction in the advocacy movement regarding "must" and "shall" with the host railroads giving absolute priority to passenger trains. I know of more than one person who regards the government funding of track improvements as the camel's nose under the tent to enforce "must" and "shall" -- the advocacy people regard this not as a bug but as a feature, and the railroad companies are catching wise to it being the other way around from their vantage point.
You know, Don, you once promised to explain this "slot" concept of track utilization to us and how it affects Amtrak on-time performance and the capacity of a line to accomodate high-priority traffic such as more passenger trains. I know you are busy and have a day job and everything, but if more of us understood this "slot" thing, there would be a better appreciation in the advocacy community of what can and cannot be done with some of these passenger train proposals.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Here is "A" vision--something nobody else seems to notice. The route of Amtrak's most successful train is not included in any high-speed rail plans. Trains ran a map of "By Train to Florida, January 1953," (December, 2009) and there were about thirty trains a day crossing the border. Now we have three--none from the west or midwest.
I see a route that is neglected because the airlines want all the business.[View:http://cs.trains.com/trccs/themes/trc/utility/:550:0][View:http://cs.trains.com/trccs/themes/trc/utility/:550:0]
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
I was first terrified over addressing the first sets of questions about capacity and bidding for space. The last two statements allow for the further reaching solution concerning SFU discussed in earlier post.
I present this…….instead of thinking about rail travel as incremental trains bidding for space on tracks and stations, try to imagine continuous flow of SF units that merge and exit the rails without stopping. While Amtrak and the Acela fade into depreciation the space between trains, the excess capacity, can be utilized as SF units enter and exit the rails without needing to stop or interfere with existing rolling stock.
The fixed rail is the key to regulating capacity as units merge because it is one dimensional allowing computer programs and GPS can regulate the flow. The ultimate problem, once safety is engineered, would be possibility of having bumper to bumper jams. But would that be actually a sign of success and a good problem to finally have?
intermodal128 I read up on the 1980 Staggers Act and conclude that it freed railroads to utilize their monopoly to operate at market rates and dump costly assets to achieve profits. Regulation had certainly forced them into a hole and with rising completion from air and interstate something had to give before they went bankrupt. Deregulation ultimate goal is to encourage innovation while preserving the public goal. It is confused with monopoly power because monopolies can both be in pursuit of public interest or a detrimental to it. While I as an entrepreneur can put a bus on the highway or a plane in an airport, I cannot put a train on the rails. There is a market niche that I am prevented from entering and bringing competitive innovation, which is public bad. The efficient nature of transporting freight is possibly a public good. We should be able to have both these public goods: innovation (free market) and efficient transportation by freeing up the one dimensional steel rails. Intermodal128
I read up on the 1980 Staggers Act and conclude that it freed railroads to utilize their monopoly to operate at market rates and dump costly assets to achieve profits. Regulation had certainly forced them into a hole and with rising completion from air and interstate something had to give before they went bankrupt.
Deregulation ultimate goal is to encourage innovation while preserving the public goal. It is confused with monopoly power because monopolies can both be in pursuit of public interest or a detrimental to it. While I as an entrepreneur can put a bus on the highway or a plane in an airport, I cannot put a train on the rails. There is a market niche that I am prevented from entering and bringing competitive innovation, which is public bad. The efficient nature of transporting freight is possibly a public good. We should be able to have both these public goods: innovation (free market) and efficient transportation by freeing up the one dimensional steel rails.
intermodal128 What deregulation occurred? Yes they compete for traffic, but the true test of completion is entry in the market. Monopolies imply barrier to entry. My thoughts…… air and interstate compete within their niche, but railroads exercise monopolies in their niche. The competition between niches is similar to US free market competing with China command economy. We beat ourselves up, while China focuses. Railroads focus on their individual line, while anyone can fly in a plane or drive in a truck or car and compete.
You should really read Mike Blaszak's article in September TRAINS to understand what was actually accomplished by the Staggers Act. You also seem to assume that competition can only be within the same mode, which is not true. Railroads compete with trucks for freight business and lost the competition with airlines for passengers.
What deregulation occurred?
Yes they compete for traffic, but the true test of completion is entry in the market. Monopolies imply barrier to entry. My thoughts…… air and interstate compete within their niche, but railroads exercise monopolies in their niche. The competition between niches is similar to US free market competing with China command economy. We beat ourselves up, while China focuses. Railroads focus on their individual line, while anyone can fly in a plane or drive in a truck or car and compete.
intermodal128 So basically railroads are monopolies. They continue to operate using the same technology as from 1800s. No competition and no reason to improve. Did the railroads purchase the land under the rails or did US Government help? Is Amtrak a sign of public private cooperation? Are there other examples of cooperation?
They compete fiercely for all types of traffic and are only successful in certain market niches where they have an advantage. Performance, every way you'd like to measure it, has greatly improved since deregulation.
Most railroad ROW was purchase with private money.
Amtrak is not a public/private partnership. It is a majority owned government corporation. It has agreements with the freight railroads that allow operation of their trains on their tracks including performance incentives and penalties.
So basically railroads are monopolies. They continue to operate using the same technology as from 1800s. No competition and no reason to improve.
Did the railroads purchase the land under the rails or did US Government help? Is Amtrak a sign of public private cooperation? Are there other examples of cooperation?
intermodal128 How does the rail right of way history and current maintenance compare with our interstate system? Intermodal128
How does the rail right of way history and current maintenance compare with our interstate system?
Current Maintenance: Railroad: High tonnage routes and most secondary lines: Generally excellent. Highway: spotty. Some in fine shape, some really ratty.
Rights of way in most of the rest of the world are generally government owned, a leftover from the period of nationalized railways (BR, SNCF, DB, RENFE, etc.). Also, right of way ownership/upkeep and operation of trains is generally performed by separate entities.
I think a nerve was hit concerning the notion of “open access.” Who owns the rail corridors in Europe and other countries? Do we maintain monopolies that prevent completion? Where does rail ownership fit into today’s discussion on free markets and government regulation?
Short comings of buses compared to rail are numerous. Riding in buses is slow, uncomfortable, and bumpy. Acceleration at stops and access downtown through lights and traffic terrible. On the fly transfer between units impossible due to 3 dimensional travel where as rail offers one dimension and has direct line to downtowns on the smooth energy efficient steel rails capable of much greater speeds.
Legality to “open access,” what is all that about?
Intermodal 128
The Split Flexliner is asking a railroad to do what is already being done by highway buses. Also, the proposal as suggested by Intermodal 128 would require the legal issue of "open access" to be resolved.
I am sorry to hear about the struggle up there in the Chicago community over $800M and the competion with cars. Land development related to transportation is something the "Public Funders" always have to contend with because the decision to create a project "targets" development and threrefore takes on Pork Belly overtones. The success of the highway program was percisely because if free up market decisions regarding land development. Its approach was considered realitively fair because it spread across many parts of the country as consistent format. Rail related development is too specific and claims of favoritism spark uncompromising debate. The only successful rail projects are those that improve existing markets not ones that create new markets. The highway system freely promoted land development to anyone with a vehicle.
Your struggle is a no winner. (Perato Optimality, Econ 101) It is very difficult to speculate with public funds unless there is a consensus future which the previous articles points out the absence. But I will say that $800M over 300,000 riders is only $2667/ rider. That seems to me as a returnable figure.
I wish we as a country get beyond these local battles and free up decisions for market forces to make. The SFU (spilt flexliner unit) attempts to do this because it uses existing rail infrastructure while allowing more open access to the steel rails for entrepreneurs and innovated secondary economies to develop freely under free market capitalism. (If only Glenn Beck understood what he says) No public decisions are made as to land development with the exception of where to allow entry-exist portals but that can be written into the regulations as an adminstrative code. And these decisions would be fairly market oriented since the entry-exist portals are very inexpensive and require small acreage.
Our rail system can never be that of Europe or other old world countries because they do not have a highway system any thing close to that in the United States. China could be an amazing partner in a new type of rail system.
But, you are right. What ever the money gets spent on, it better not smell like a boondoggle 5 years out - or that will be the end of it for a long, long time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.