But if you had a dome seat you would not mind containers behind. Anyway, the well cars have to be rebuilt for high-speed operation anyway, so addition of HEP cable and passenger car braking and couplers is a natural complement.
The way I envision it, FedEx and UPS would be able to give same-day delivary in areas where they cannot today. With the correct specialized mobile crane equipment, transfers should not require any more time than the typical hand unloading and loading of mail, baggage, and express took for a streamliner with RPO and baggage cars.
V.PayneThis could be replicated by operating non-HEP container cars between a pair of engines, with GE Locotrol (a reduced wire count MU control), at the front end.
Have to be careful putting light-weight intermodal cars between 2 engines, though. There's a risk of popping them off the rail.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
In the late 1990's 42% of the Southwest Chief operating revenue came from mail and express (per Senate testimony during the changeover to GOP control - will post link in another thread I am composing). However, the main difference was that it was in HEP cable supplied MHC's at the front end that caused essentially no delay either to the yard operations or the over the road schedule.
This could be replicated by operating non-HEP container cars between a pair of engines, with GE Locotrol (a reduced wire count MU control), at the front end. However, may I submitt that the loading of the container is going to take some time, so for mail and express you might be better off just having a MHC-II, with either automated pallet loading (friction drive) or plain old forklifts.
Not to say containers are a no go for any reason, but the main issue is economy of scale for any transloading operation.
Victrola1 The TOFC Rocket. In the waning days of its passenger service to Omaha, the Rock Island would run trailers on flat cars ahead of passenger cars. This probably had more to do with stemming the loss incurred running passenger trains than a service inovation.
The TOFC Rocket.
In the waning days of its passenger service to Omaha, the Rock Island would run trailers on flat cars ahead of passenger cars. This probably had more to do with stemming the loss incurred running passenger trains than a service inovation.
I had left Iowa by the time the Rock Island started doing this, and wonder if the railroad actually mitigated passenger losses with this service or was simply getting a good TOFC customer on his way, since it had a train going that way anyway, instead of waiting for the next freight train to fill out?
I don't like seeing anything other than the track behind the train I'm on.
Johnny
I do not think passengers will in any way resent seeing containers behind or before the passenger equipment, if the technology available is employed so that transfer of the containers is speedy enough, and the passenger service is excellent. Indeed, a fair proportion of LD passengers also own cars and drive. Thus the P:R benefit of how railroads remove trucks from the highways.
I've stated many times why I believe LDs are important for NA's civilization, both USA and Canada, and I don't need to review that once more.
The IC included Flexi-vans tacked on the rear of the Hawkeye.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepperThe final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
Sounds like someone wants to step back in time about 45 years (or more). Nostalgia makes for nice coffee table books, but it is far removed from reality.
There is nothing that is going to turn off a passenger more than seeing containers at the end of their train. In Europe passenger trains have increased ridership. The last time I visited England; there wasn't a passenger train I rode that wasn't crowded. Just before I visited the Severn Valley Railway Museum, I watched a freight come through Kidderminster. The consist was all containers and the train was short and fast.
I once saw the Rock Island's Plainsman enter St Paul hauling more TOFC than passenger coaches in 1968; it even had a caboose. Passenger Trains and containers should be run in separate consists. It is about image as much as anything else.
daveklepper The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
For a while, Amtrak did move containerized mail in baggage cars. It was a roll on/roll off system, direct to truck.
Amtrak also offered their own package express business for a while.
The old NYC Flexi-van system would work pretty well with passenger trains. You could probably spin a few boxes on and off in the time it takes for Amtrak to get up and into the train through the single door they open at most stops.
There probably exist niche markets for moving some freight on passenger trains, but they are pretty small. The lanes where passenger trains run, the frt RRs have pretty competitive products. (e.g. Amtrak isn't that much faster than NS from Chicago to NJ or CSX from NJ to Orlando)
Most of the barriers to doing are institutional rather than structural. (e.g. Amtrak doesn't really care. Frt RRs would object.)
The great risk that the passengers will wind up being the secondary part of the business. There were a couple cases of the tail wagging the dog during Amtrak's forray into freight service.
Perhaps the way to go about LD train in general is for Amtrak to become the middle man between the frt RRs and some contract operators. Amtrak provides the route, schedule slot, and maybe has locomotives and some equipment available. Operators bid on the rest. Bids might "negative", that is, smallest subsidy wins.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I remember reading that Amtrak's mail and express operation during the Warrington presidency covered its additional costs but made only a minimal positive contribution to the bottom line. When you factor in the delays and slower schedules on the passenger operation, it became more bother than it was worth.
daveklepper1. i THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THIS WAS TO BE A RAILROAD OWNED OPERATION. THAT IF IT WAS AMTRAK, IT WOULD BE AFTER THE SIX OR SEVEN BIGGIES TOOK OVER AMTRAK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
If the freight railroads wanted to operate passenger trains - there would be no amtrak already. But they don't, so there is.
And how much friehgt would you have to haul to offset new freight cars and a completely new service/system? Not to mention making enough profit to actually assist in passenger operations?
1. i THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THIS WAS TO BE A RAILROAD OWNED OPERATION. THAT IF IT WAS AMTRAK, IT WOULD BE AFTER THE SIX OR SEVEN BIGGIES TOOK OVER AMTRAK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
2. I THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE FREIGHT OPERATION WOULD BE COORDINATED WITH EXISTING INTERMODAL OPERATIONS AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH THEM.
3. SINCE THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT ALL PAST METHODS CAN BE DISCARDED, AND THE CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER MECHANCISMS CAN BE DESIGNED FOR RAPID TRANSFER TRUCK TO TRAIN AND TRAIN TO TRUCK.
4. IT IS A CONCEPT, AND THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF IMPLEMENTING IT. BUT THE WELL FLATCARS USED FOR THE CONTAINERS WOULD EITHER BE NEW OR REBUILT FOR HIGH-SPEED OPERATION.
zugmann I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)? Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and oeprating restrictions that may come from hauling said frieght equipment.
I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)?
Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and oeprating restrictions that may come from hauling said frieght equipment.
zugmann I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)? Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and operating restrictions that may come from hauling said freight equipment.
Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and operating restrictions that may come from hauling said freight equipment.
I'm with Zugmann. David Gunn realized mail and express compromised the already-shaky reliability of the passenger service that is Amtrak's mission -- and ditched them. They weren't worth it for what they brought to the bottom line.
It's true that, in the final pre-Amtrak days, some premier trains carried a lot of mail and express, but only because they were the only schedules left. Their running times suffered accordingly. Especially on its once-a-day LD routes, Amtrak doesn't need this.
What the original poster may be thinking of is a small container similar to the cargo containers for the baggage hold of wide body passeng airliners, though something made for a passenger train could be rectangular rather part semicircle. This would require a slightly modified baggage car, possibly with floor roller to facilitate the moving of containers inside the car.
I'm wondering if this would be the killer app for HSR, being able to schedule same-day delivery from LA to SF could be worth something.
- Erik
ATK is not authorized to haul freight by its authorizing legislation IIRC. The railroads did not make an issue of it when ATK tried their "express" gambit because it was small potatoes AND express historically travelled by passenger train.
Count on it, the freight carriers will not go along with subsidizing ATK any further than they already are by diverting premium intermodal to passenger trains.
Mac
My prescription for railroad operated and profitable long-distance passenger trains. Requires cooperation and interest from FedEX and/or UPS. Compact unloading facilties are in the passenger stations themselves. Passenger platform on one side of the tracks, truck driveway on the other side. While the train is unloading and loading passengers at an intermediate stop, one or more mobile overhead cranes move the containers from well cars at the rear of the train to the truck chasises and reverse. With catenary, a new design of crane is necessary, that fits under catenary, picks up a container and moves it just two feet about the platform level of the well car and truck chassis.
Right now a lot of air freight travels double of even triple the distance between origin and end points because of the hub-and-spoke nature of both UPS and FedEx operations. A network of long-distance trains providing the service I have outlined could reduce shipping costs and make possiblel a long-distance passenger service that does not require subsidy. It should be railroad operated to coordinate with the regular freight business of that railroads have with these two customers. A place to try it out might be All-Abord Flordia. The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.