TGV breaks record

[beaulieu]

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.

[Anonymous]

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. 

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.

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.

[erikem]

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. 

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. 

[beaulieu]

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.