Amtrak tried express and even tofc I believe. But the freight railroads balked and made time keeping difficult for Amtrak. And some charged Amtrak with taking the eye off the ball, the ball being moving passengers and not oranges and Great Danes. So we have what we have...unfortunately it takes an act of Congress to move people on tracks.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Thank you to Don, Mac and Greyhounds for your technical and marketing insights ... the Trains forum at its best!
oltmannd schlimm daveklepper You are neglecting the time and expense (mainly crew and power) to get the roadrailers to an from the Amtrak train, which does not operate to locations where roading and connections to tractors are practical. Terminal to terminal; cut-off the trailers in a yard to transfer for trucking to destination. If the IC could cope 45 years ago, why is it impossible to figure out a scheme today? It's POSSIBLE, it's likely it's not PROFITABLE... or at least the margin is so thin it's worth the RR spending it's time and money on things with better yield. .
schlimm daveklepper You are neglecting the time and expense (mainly crew and power) to get the roadrailers to an from the Amtrak train, which does not operate to locations where roading and connections to tractors are practical. Terminal to terminal; cut-off the trailers in a yard to transfer for trucking to destination. If the IC could cope 45 years ago, why is it impossible to figure out a scheme today?
daveklepper You are neglecting the time and expense (mainly crew and power) to get the roadrailers to an from the Amtrak train, which does not operate to locations where roading and connections to tractors are practical.
You are neglecting the time and expense (mainly crew and power) to get the roadrailers to an from the Amtrak train, which does not operate to locations where roading and connections to tractors are practical.
It's POSSIBLE, it's likely it's not PROFITABLE... or at least the margin is so thin it's worth the RR spending it's time and money on things with better yield.
.
Intermodal ahead of passenger cars is totally possible. It wasn't just the IC that did it. The New York Central was hauling mail and express COFC up front on passenger trains in the 1920s. (Until the silly stupid government regulators decided to strangle intermodal.) The Rock Island, and probably some others, put TOFC up front on some of their passenger trains. Including the Peoria Rocket while I was on it.
You can shove RoadRailers. I worked for RoadRailer. I also once looked into using a would be RoadRailer competitor, "Rail Runner" IIRC. One of the tests the FRA put the Rail Runner through was to couple a string up on a curve and apply compression to see it they'd hold the rail. They did.
But forget RoadRailers. The equipment isn't the issue. The question, as Oltmannd said, is does this make economic sense. The overwhelming evidence is that it doesn't. Amtrak gave it up. Those IC passenger trains went away. Remember the failed Super C . There was no regulatory interference in these cases. It just didn't work business wise.
Freight and passengers are moved in separate trains for reasons. They're serving different markets. And, most of all, it is uneconomical to move freight at passenger train speeds. Speed cost money. And very few shippers will pay what it costs to move their product by surface at 79 MPH. If they really need a rapid movement they'll go with air freight.
I'll sure be interested if someone can economically justify freight on Amtrak. Operating the mixed trains can well be done. There's just no valid reason to do it.
Dakota,
I can not speak to Streak's claim about pushing. Don says they are good for 400,000# in buff (compression) which is more than I expected. I will defer to him on that point.
They are relatively fragile and specialized, and peculiar to operating people. The other issue with shoving them is derailments. With light axle loading it would not take a lot of force to shove them over the top of the rail on a sharp curve. They are very specialized equipment, not a go anywhere do anything item like a rail car.
Mac
PNWRMNM dakotafred I never understood why those Roadrailers (or whatever they were) couldn't be sitting in station at the head end of the train, like their baggage/mail counterparts of old. Platform overhang for passengers in the destination-city terminal? How did the railroads cope in pre-Amtrak days? Dakota, The whole point of roadrailers was to make them light like a truck trailer. That means that, compared to a rail car, they have next to no compressive and draft strength. That precludes putting them between the power and even a passenger train. A baggage car, by contrast, was a rail car and was built strongly enough to spend its whole live between the power and the rest of the train. Mac
dakotafred I never understood why those Roadrailers (or whatever they were) couldn't be sitting in station at the head end of the train, like their baggage/mail counterparts of old. Platform overhang for passengers in the destination-city terminal? How did the railroads cope in pre-Amtrak days?
The whole point of roadrailers was to make them light like a truck trailer. That means that, compared to a rail car, they have next to no compressive and draft strength. That precludes putting them between the power and even a passenger train. A baggage car, by contrast, was a rail car and was built strongly enough to spend its whole live between the power and the rest of the train.
And their lack of strength is also why they can't be pushed, per blue streak?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
dakotafred blue streak 1 oltmanndYou can back them up, but you can't ride on the head end of the shove. Amtrak's bogies had platform and safety equipment. The NS equipment doesn't. DON was on a CAL Z that stalled up helper after 2 of 3 units quit loading with regular consist and 10 - 14 road railers . UP offered to shove up hill but Amtrak crew said that the road railers could not be pushed only pulled. So a big delay waiting for 2 UP diesels to go around and attach to front of train and get train up Helper. SLC maintenance crew able to get the 2 non loading ones operating.. Again betraying my ignorance: So the Roadrailers not only can't be backed, they can't be pushed. Why in the world not? Sounds like an ingeniously designed marvel of inflexibility that railroads would want a lot of.
blue streak 1 oltmanndYou can back them up, but you can't ride on the head end of the shove. Amtrak's bogies had platform and safety equipment. The NS equipment doesn't. DON was on a CAL Z that stalled up helper after 2 of 3 units quit loading with regular consist and 10 - 14 road railers . UP offered to shove up hill but Amtrak crew said that the road railers could not be pushed only pulled. So a big delay waiting for 2 UP diesels to go around and attach to front of train and get train up Helper. SLC maintenance crew able to get the 2 non loading ones operating..
oltmanndYou can back them up, but you can't ride on the head end of the shove. Amtrak's bogies had platform and safety equipment. The NS equipment doesn't.
To back up, you need a coupler mate on the rear. It has a platform and safety appliances.
To go fast, you need premium trucks:
Looks like a regular old three piece truck, but it's got better lateral suspension (uh...it actually HAS lateral suspension, unlike a 3 piece truck) Note the spring plank under the springs and lack of bolster gibs on the end of the bolster where it fits in the sideframe. There might be swing hangers on the inside of the truck, like a caboose truck - I'm not certain.... Also note the big snubber to damp things out.
Sorry for the spelling and grammar on the first post.
The main point was if you can halve your operating labor cost that seems to leave alot of room to make some money for everyone.
I suppose roadrailers are approved for only 70 because the NS speed limit is normally 60 so why seek a higher limit approval.
Yes the host railroad would have to move the cars possibly to the terminal area.
If there are freight trains going faster than Amtrak why is that true. Amtrak has more stops vs higher speed limits, higher Horse Power Ratio, no slack etc. That seems embarrassing to expliain to Congress.
In terms of roadrailers a CZ for example might have a Chicago, Denver and Eastern California Terminal only.
schlimm Combining some sort of road railer-type of cars with passenger cars could help LD routes break even and maybe permit others to operate (CHI-ATL?). I still recall the IC using Flexivan cars on their CHI to Iowa passenger trains. Perhaps the obstacle is not technical but resistance to change?
Combining some sort of road railer-type of cars with passenger cars could help LD routes break even and maybe permit others to operate (CHI-ATL?). I still recall the IC using Flexivan cars on their CHI to Iowa passenger trains. Perhaps the obstacle is not technical but resistance to change?
This was tried during the Warrington era (prior to David Gunn), and after all was said and done, the mail and express Roadrailers and express boxes didn't bring that much additional revenue to the bottom line.
OK, so the IC did it. But few others ever did. And I maintain it is not the best approach. Suppose Triple Crown-NS decide to go after the West Coast perishable business. Both UP and BNSF have a number of hot intermodal trains that their roadrailers could trail and make better time overall than trailing an Amtrak. I would not be surprised to see this happen, a lot more likely than roadrailers returning to Amtrak. More trains to choose from, direct to yard handling, places for moving from rail to road and reverse, makes a lot more sense. And I do think they can and should go after the business. Unless their capital needs are so great they cannot, and then there is an opportunity for third party, possibly an existing truck firm. Would solve their driver shortage problem by letting the RR do most of the driving.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd dakotafred Don: Can't back up -- why not? And what is the gain in making/buying a car that can't be backed? Are there any other such rail cars? Thanks. You can back them up, but you can't ride on the head end of the shove. Amtrak's bogies had platform and safety equipment. The NS equipment doesn't.
dakotafred Don: Can't back up -- why not? And what is the gain in making/buying a car that can't be backed? Are there any other such rail cars? Thanks.
Don: Can't back up -- why not? And what is the gain in making/buying a car that can't be backed? Are there any other such rail cars? Thanks.
You can back them up, but you can't ride on the head end of the shove. Amtrak's bogies had platform and safety equipment. The NS equipment doesn't.
Actually, the Couplermates can go on the rear instead of a regular bogie. That's how Conrail used to run them out of Crestline, Ohio to head north towards Cleveland. The train would pull east of town on the former Pennsy with the conductor riding the rear Couplermate. It would then back around the interchange to the former NYC main to the south end of town, and then the conductor would rejoin the engineer for the run northbound out of Crestline.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
The rail portion of the RoadRailers that Amtrak used is not the same as Triple Crown uses. There are several major issues, not the least of which is the 70 mph limit for Triple Crown bogies. NS operates them at 60 mph, however. Another one is backing up. The current freight RoadRailers don't have a provision for backing up. The Amtrak ones did...
I notice Triple Crown has updated its roadrailer website sometime in 2013 and that sparked a question. Triple Crown has an agreement with UP to get to Minnesota and BNSF to get to Texas so why not go to the West Coast on Amtrak.
Yes I remember the mess with the Amtrak express plan upsetting the host railroads but this seems like a win-win.
The host railroad's:
1) operation department does not have to create a slot for like a new train between say Chicago and the west coast.
2) can save 50% on labor by splitting with Amtrak
3) reduce start up risks and minimun requirements to break even
4)the host railroad would provide their engines and fuel to pull the roadrailers. It would require additional horse power to match the passenger train HP per ton ratio. The railroad would the opprotunity to have the labor cost vs running say 3 engines vs 2 to pull the roadrailes.
Amtrak:
1) Would require 0 expense to add the roadrailers
2) Halve its operating labor cost per train
3) Better on time performace because the host railroad has a vested interest in the roadrailers arriving on time.
Triple Crown
1) Gets a nationwide service area
2) Plugs more business into their current network.
Note a 150 roadrailers takes more than 8000 feet of siding space so some routes may not work.
I would love Congress to say anything you do to cut federal funding we would give back to Amtrak in new equipment grants. That in my opinion is an incentative for Amtrak to do better and a win-win for the tax payer.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.