The recent issue on electrification had an interesting artistic rendition of what a train might look like in the future...an electric locomotive pulling a train of tractor trailer trucks. Interestingly the "rolling highway" has been used in Europe for quite some time..and might be the answer to reducing terminal costs on shorthaul intermodal. Although probably not as fuel efficient as double stack..the cost savings on each end might make it viable nonetheless.
Hey - stop posting things like that ! You'll give people dangerous ideas.
But isn't that essentially CPR's 'Exxpressway' [formerly 'Iron Highway'] equipment and service ?
Well, at least what it could be, if they'd just lengthen or otherwise modify the existing 45 ft. long [?] platforms slightly, so as to accomodate a still hooked-up tractor-trailer rig across the 'joint' that connects the platforms.
- Paul North.
Beats me how electrification changes the cost of hauling freight other than making the cost per horsepower delivered to the rail become more expensive.
It takes a lot of reduction in terminal costs to overcome the loss of revenue that occurs when a given train slot is used to deliver fewer boxes, which is what happens when a slot used to deliver 220 53-foot double-stack containers instead delivers 110 53-foot RoadRailers or any sort of specialized equipment. RoadRailers are problematic because of their high tare weight, too, as the container can and is used for heavy bulk commodities, particularly on the backhaul where the container never enters the public road system. The price differential between intermodal and truckload over long distances is not very large, and the schedule difference over long distances is also small. If there is spare capacity in a short-haul lane including the last miles into the cities on each ends, and if there is very stable traffic flows, and if these flows are of low-density goods, and if they are moving in both directions, and if customers are willing to sign up for long terms to enable the bank to loan the money for the equipment, then the RoadRailer has a niche. That is a large pile of ifs, and it's why RoadRailers only occur in a limited number of O-D pairs. Double-stack equipment on the other hand is really just the modern version of the 40' boxcar. It works in a broad variety of lanes, it can handle all sorts of different commodities, it is cheap, and it delivers an enormous amount of freight per track slot it uses.
Railway Man Beats me how electrification changes the cost of hauling freight other than making the cost per horsepower delivered to the rail become more expensive. RWM
RWM
Strange how topics that recently occupy my mind come up on here . . .
Your thesis appears to be that electrification is not necessarily an elixir for freight railroads. If I misunderstand your thesis, I am sure you will let me know.
I was thinking about the case of the Illinois Terminal and its decision to go with diesel and abandon electrification. To me, the decision of an electric railroad with infrastructure in place to abandon electric suggests one of two things (or both): (1) there really is not that much cash savings associated with an electric railroad, or (2) the IT was already dying in the 1960s when this decision was made, and diesels would allow a railroad that was dying on the vine to last longer than repairing its existing wires/electrical network.
I raise the second possibility, as it would not necessary reflect negatively on an electric-run freight railraod. As a healthy and vibrant railroad like BNSF would obviously have different financial dynamics than a dying interurban that was barely surviving on its freight revenue.
In any event, as always, I would be interested in your opinion.
Gabe
P.S. I know I have mentioned this before, but the thing that gives me the most pause regarding electrification is railroads surrenduring the ability to maintain operations to a power grid that is going to prioritize the voting public. I insist that there is no contract in the world that will prevent a politician from insisting that power does not go to the Transcon in a brown out but rather goes to 100,000,000 voters that will have its head if they go without power.
A few points…
TOFC is less efficient because you are hauling the trailer frame, and the rubber tires.
Now add a tractor, and the trailer.
Now you have just doubled the in-affiances.
It all depends on what the railroad decides is efficient and what’s not. For example NS used to think that 4400hp diesels were a waste of fuel because of the extra 400hp.
Personally, what is a few thousand pounds extra steel and rubber to a 16000hp lash up.
Just my
The road to to success is always under construction. _____________________________________________________________________________ When the going gets tough, the tough use duct tape.
gabe Strange how topics that recently occupy my mind come up on here . . . Your thesis appears to be that electrification is not necessarily an elixir for freight railroads. If I misunderstand your thesis, I am sure you will let me know. I was thinking about the case of the Illinois Terminal and its decision to go with diesel and abandon electrification. To me, the decision of an electric railroad with infrastructure in place to abandon electric suggests one of two things (or both): (1) there really is not that much cash savings associated with an electric railroad, or (2) the IT was already dying in the 1960s when this decision was made, and diesels would allow a railroad that was dying on the vine to last longer than repairing its existing wires/electrical network. I raise the second possibility, as it would not necessary reflect negatively on an electric-run freight railraod. As a healthy and vibrant railroad like BNSF would obviously have different financial dynamics than a dying interurban that was barely surviving on its freight revenue. In any event, as always, I would be interested in your opinion. Gabe P.S. I know I have mentioned this before, but the thing that gives me the most pause regarding electrification is railroads surrenduring the ability to maintain operations to a power grid that is going to prioritize the voting public. I insist that there is no contract in the world that will prevent a politician from insisting that power does not go to the Transcon in a brown out but rather goes to 100,000,000 voters that will have its head if they go without power.
First, with regards to your P.S.----One of the 1,000 pound gorillas not mentioned in that awful Trains article about electrifiction was the electric power supply. Not a word about where the electricity would come from. Such an electrification would require "several" new power plants. Nuclear or coal. That would take decades if it were allowed at all. Please remember, our president has said anyone building a new coal plant with be forced into bankruptcy. Nuclear in the U.S.? Not in my lifetime.
Second, the IT didn't get rid of electric freight in the 1960's, they replaced their electric freight locomotives with Geeps in the early 50's. The wires came down when passenger service ended, around 1955-1956.
They had nowhere near the traffic density needed to support an electric freight operation. Their line to E. Peoria had one train each way per day. They might have had three each way per day south of Springfield. Including one soybean meal unit train that connected ADM at Decatur with a barge terminal near St. Louis. IIRC, they wound up operating Decatur-Springfield-St. Louis via trackage rights over the N&W/IC(G).
Railway Man Beats me how electrification changes the cost of hauling freight other than making the cost per horsepower delivered to the rail become more expensive. It takes a lot of reduction in terminal costs to overcome the loss of revenue that occurs when a given train slot is used to deliver fewer boxes, which is what happens when a slot used to deliver 220 53-foot double-stack containers instead delivers 110 53-foot RoadRailers or any sort of specialized equipment. RoadRailers are problematic because of their high tare weight, too, as the container can and is used for heavy bulk commodities, particularly on the backhaul where the container never enters the public road system. The price differential between intermodal and truckload over long distances is not very large, and the schedule difference over long distances is also small. If there is spare capacity in a short-haul lane including the last miles into the cities on each ends, and if there is very stable traffic flows, and if these flows are of low-density goods, and if they are moving in both directions, and if customers are willing to sign up for long terms to enable the bank to loan the money for the equipment, then the RoadRailer has a niche. That is a large pile of ifs, and it's why RoadRailers only occur in a limited number of O-D pairs. Double-stack equipment on the other hand is really just the modern version of the 40' boxcar. It works in a broad variety of lanes, it can handle all sorts of different commodities, it is cheap, and it delivers an enormous amount of freight per track slot it uses. RWM
Well, this one's going to take a while. I'm going to strongly agree with RWM's first paragraph, then also strongly disagree with most of his 2nd paragraph.
First, the agreement part. Changing the power from diesel to straight electric will not, in any way, significantly improve the competitive situation of train vs. truck. On page 30 of November 2009 Trains, in that awful article on electrification, the wording is: (electrification) "has the potential to put 83 percent of today's truck traffic on electrified rail lines." I never in my life thought I'd see anything this stupid written in the pages of Trains. Providing the electricity needed to turn the traction motors from an overhead wire instead of from an onboard generator/altenator won't significantly improve the competitive situation. It could well make things worse. The railroads couldn't divert 83% of the truck traffic if their motive power was free.
If you want to understand the key, read Larry Gross's article on page 7. Gross has actually been down in the trenches and tried to compete with trucks using rail intermodal. In contrast, the awful article on electrification was written by a "Freelance Writer" who decided to quote a representative of an activist environmental group without question. We could all ask ourselves: "What does either one of these people know about moving freight.?" To me, the answer is obvious. Niether one of 'em knows anything about moving freight. They're both pushing an agenda. If reality gets in the way of said agenda, they'll just make up a "new reality". And Trains has printed their invented reality as truth. Again, I never though I'd see anything this awful in Trains Magazine. (another doosey quote is on page 31 claiming that electrification "could" add 175 million jobs. In 2006, before this recession, the US had about 161 million jobs. So, according to Trains, electrification will more than double the number of jobs in the US. Yep. Trains claims replacing diesel-electric with straight electric will double the number of jobs in the US. They say so right there on page 31.)
Now, on to the 2nd paragraph.
I'm in full agreement with the concept that replacing a 220 container stack train with a 110 trailer RoadRailer train is "A Really Bad Idea." The railroad would be giving up half the revenue for no good reason. Where stack service works, you can not beat it.
What I'm in strong disagreement with is that double stack is the new 40 foot boxcar, maid of all work, go anywhere, do anything, at any time, Alpha and Omega of railroading. Unlike the old 40 foot boxcar, stack service has a very limited market reach. Again, see Gross's article. Double stack does not work for Grand Rapids to New York business. And there is a heck of a lot more freight moving shorter distances (500 miles) than there is moving between the midwest and the west coast.
Now, if the railroads were "full", moving large stack trains, coal trains, grain trains, etc. for thousands of miles this would be of "No Never Mind". But the railroads are not now, and never were, "full". Certainly, segements of the rail network were at capacity and more than filled with those stack/coal/grain trains. (This is no longer generally applicable.) But other segments of the rail network could have always used some more business. Double stack has been around now for 25 years and it just hasn't worked in many markets. It's time to try another approach on the lanes and commodities (PERISHABLES!) where double stack has not worked.
This is a good place to deal with the similar price/service offered by long distance intermodal compared to truck cited by RWM. Well, Yes. If the railroads are offering a similar service, they're going to charge a similar price. They're not going to discount the price out of the goodness of their heart. Price isn't cost, and if they can mark up the business they'd be dang fools not to. All you need to know about this is that JB Hunt is now primarily an intermodal carrier. Hunt didn't shift its business from road to rail because it likes the trains, it shifted because the trains cost less and offer the service Hunt's customers need. (but only on the lanes where double stack works) It's the railroad's pricing manager's job to get her/his price low enough to get the business, and not one dime lower. The closer she/he can get to the truck price, the better of a job she/he is doing. If the rail prices are close to the truck prices that just means the railroad marketing/pricing/operating folks are doing a fine job. It certainly does not mean that rail vs truck costs are nearly equal.
As to the weight carrying ability of double stack containers vs. RoadRailer type equipment, I'm going to disagree with RWM. I just spent some time tilting at windmills trying to set up an intermodal perishable operation. The initial concept was to use double stacked refrigerated containers. We ran into a weight problem. We had heavy loads (perishables are mostly water.). When you put a container on a chassis you have more tare weight than a standard highway trailer. That means you can not carry as much payload weight in a container as you can in a standard highway trailer and stay within the highway weight limits. Advantage to motor transport. Conversely, when we looked at RailMate, we had no disadvantage on the highway. (I'm a RoadRailer alum, in more ways than one, and I like RailMate better.)
We also had a container weight problem on the rail. We were exceeding the capacity of an articulated well car and we were worried about the tons per operative brake thing.
To wind this up, double stack works well in its niche. But that niche is relatively small. There are other opportunites that should be developed. The Trains article on electification was just plain awful.
Greyhounds:
)>
greyhoundsinitial concept was to use double stacked refrigerated containers. We ran into a weight problem. We had heavy loads (perishables are mostly water.). When you put a container on a chassis you have more tare weight than a standard highway trailer.
Very interesting.
To follow up on your post this afternoon I saw a BNSF haulage intermodal on CSX have 4 GEs on the front (2nd one was smoking like another blown turbocharger or 261 running). On the end of the intermodal was about 10 to 20 TOFC cars with refrigerated produce trailers. Maybe with the weight restriction you posted that is the solution RRs may take (at least BNSF)>[
gabeI know I have mentioned this before, but the thing that gives me the most pause regarding electrification is railroads surrenduring the ability to maintain operations to a power grid that is going to prioritize the voting public. I insist that there is no contract in the world that will prevent a politician from insisting that power does not go to the Transcon in a brown out but rather goes to 100,000,000 voters that will have its head if they go without power.
I know I have mentioned this before, but the thing that gives me the most pause regarding electrification is railroads surrenduring the ability to maintain operations to a power grid that is going to prioritize the voting public. I insist that there is no contract in the world that will prevent a politician from insisting that power does not go to the Transcon in a brown out but rather goes to 100,000,000 voters that will have its head if they go without power.
You're looking at the world from a black helicopters point of view.
The logic doesn't compute, either. How long do you think the economy keeps going (and power keeps being generated) after the power is turned off to the railroad and the coal and everything else quits moving? In reality, it's the residential customer who gets turned off in a crunch. For example, California during the Enron debacle.
It's easy to purchase uninterruptible electric power, but it is expensive. If you want cheap power, it is interruptible. Major industrial users of electricity usually go for the interruptible variety, but their operations occur at distinct locations instead of scattered all over the landscape, so it is much more economical for them to accommodate interruptions.
Railroads are rightly concerned about interruptible power, and arranging for the generation and transmission capacity to maintain operations is just another entry on the cost side of the equation.
Ulrich The recent issue on electrification had an interesting artistic rendition of what a train might look like in the future...an electric locomotive pulling a train of tractor trailer trucks. Interestingly the "rolling highway" has been used in Europe for quite some time..and might be the answer to reducing terminal costs on shorthaul intermodal. Although probably not as fuel efficient as double stack..the cost savings on each end might make it viable nonetheless.
Addressing the idea of a "Truck Shuttle" service rather than whether it would be pulled by diesel or electric traction; the reason I doubt it would be viable in North America is the additional fuel cost of hauling the truck tractors. Iknow this is being done in Europe where a.there are many more long haul trucks that are not tractor trailer units and b.European Union regs. appear to make it preferable to have a single driver operate the truck from loading to delivery. In NA hauling the trailer only seems to be much more economical..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1Ulrich The recent issue on electrification had an interesting artistic rendition of what a train might look like in the future...an electric locomotive pulling a train of tractor trailer trucks. Interestingly the "rolling highway" has been used in Europe for quite some time..and might be the answer to reducing terminal costs on shorthaul intermodal. Although probably not as fuel efficient as double stack..the cost savings on each end might make it viable nonetheless. Addressing the idea of a "Truck Shuttle" service rather than whether it would be pulled by diesel or electric traction; the reason I doubt it would be viable in North America is the additional fuel cost of hauling the truck tractors. Iknow this is being done in Europe where a.there are many more long haul trucks that are not tractor trailer units and b.European Union regs. appear to make it preferable to have a single driver operate the truck from loading to delivery. In NA hauling the trailer only seems to be much more economical..
This webpage by Hupac, the second largest Intermodal operator in Europe should give you an idea of the costs of RoLa (Rolling Highway) versus regular Intermodal (UCT or Unaccompanied Combined Transport to Europeans). Hupac operates both types of service.
Hupac's position on UCT vs. RoLa
In the chart at the bottom the poor translation from German to English, the third line should read "Reduction of CO2 emissions from Highway"
Beaulieu's link is interesting reading, and I would add this as well: A link to some info referencing EuroTunnel;s 2007 Stats- Their Shuttle Ops.
http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcMediaCentre/ukcNewsReleases/ukcNews2008/ukcJanuary2008/ukpPr0801TrafficAndRevenue2007.htm
"This webpage by Hupac, the second largest Intermodal operator in Europe should give you an idea of the costs of RoLa (Rolling Highway) versus regular Intermodal (UCT or Unaccompanied Combined Transport to Europeans). Hupac operates both types of service."
Railway Man gabe I know I have mentioned this before, but the thing that gives me the most pause regarding electrification is railroads surrenduring the ability to maintain operations to a power grid that is going to prioritize the voting public. I insist that there is no contract in the world that will prevent a politician from insisting that power does not go to the Transcon in a brown out but rather goes to 100,000,000 voters that will have its head if they go without power. You're looking at the world from a black helicopters point of view. RWM
gabe I know I have mentioned this before, but the thing that gives me the most pause regarding electrification is railroads surrenduring the ability to maintain operations to a power grid that is going to prioritize the voting public. I insist that there is no contract in the world that will prevent a politician from insisting that power does not go to the Transcon in a brown out but rather goes to 100,000,000 voters that will have its head if they go without power.
Too funny.
I wouldn't try to read too much from the figures from Eurotunnel. Truck traffic on the Eurotunnel has been high from day one. The only way for trucks to cross the Channel are either by train or ferry. Seeing as it takes about twice as long by ferry (and if the weather is bad enough, the ferry will not leave port at all), most simply choose the train. But it's no more than Calais - Folkstone v.v. and as soon as they reach the other side of the Channel, trucks get back on the road. Also, as soon as the truck is destined for the north of the UK, most trucks go back to ferry crossing to for instance New Castle. Instead of taking the short train ride, then lumber your way north over the roads through the UK, they tend to opt for a 6-7 hour ferry shuttle.
That also gets me back to the original post by Ulrich, suggesting truck shuttles are commonly used in the EU. The opposite is true. Most trucks stay on the road, and the freight that does get transferred onto trains is 99% containerized. Add in the facts that freight in general isn't nearly as fast by train as one would expect (networks are primarily used for passenger travel and that does get priority) it to be and that freight trips tend to be relatively short distance, and trucks still choose the roads in droves. In fact, come to think of it - I remember the last time I saw a truck shuttle... Never! (Besides the Eurotunnel ones, which I had the pleasure of riding on about 14 years ago).
I think it's save to conclude that truck shuttles in the EU run into the same problems as the US counterparts, plus the added hurdle of the distances being much shorter between point of origin and destination.
Here are the Timetables and price lists for the two largest Rolling Highway operators in Europe (other than Eurotunnel).
Okombi, a subsidiary of Rail Cargo Austria, which in turn is a subsidiary of OeBB (Austrian Federal Railways). They operate trains from Germany and Austria to Southern Austria, Italy, Slovenia, and Hungary. They are the largest operator.
Okombi Timetable and Price List
RAlpin, is the largest Swiss operator of Rolling Highway trains from Southern Germany to Northern Italy. They are jointly owned by Hupac, Swiss Federal Railways, and BLS Cargo.
RAlpin Timetable and Price List
Okombi also operates a service from Wels (near Linz) to Halkali, Turkey (near Istanbul), however this service is suspended due to severe flooding that destroyed the terminal in Turkey.
Railway ManBeats me how electrification changes the cost of hauling freight other than making the cost per horsepower delivered to the rail become more expensive.
The only way I see electrification making a big difference is if either hydrocarbons fuels becoming several times more expensive than they are now (while electric power rates remain stable) or hydrocarbon fuels being banned for transportation use.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.