Although I'm not advocating for this thing it does seem that they did some creative engineering to design it. Rather than scaling up locomotive turntable technology they propose to build the two rotating rings on a set of flanged wheels powered by traction motors and running on concentric circles of crane type rail. I agree with the sentiment that the the system seems like a maintenance nightmare. The total diameter for the one they want build in New Jersey is 1000 feet. I wonder if the cost of building it (estimated at approx. $220 million)would be cheaper than a conventional yard of similiar capacity (taking into account real estate costs)?
How big would a model be in HO or N scale?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
How about the trouble in maintaining alignment? Would you be able to align one straight through track at each of the 6 interfaces of the three rotating sections AND at the same time get the similar interfaces to align on the other 2 intersecting lines? That is 18 interfaces to put into alignment all at the same time, then rotate one, two or all three of the parts and do it again. Even if you could build it initially "perfect", due to the size of this thing, thermal expansion differences from one portion to another would throw everything akilter.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo wrote: How about the trouble in maintaining alignment? Would you be able to align one straight through track at each of the 6 interfaces of the three rotating sections AND at the same time get the similar interfaces to align on the other 2 intersecting lines? That is 18 interfaces to put into alignment all at the same time, then rotate one, two or all three of the parts and do it again. Even if you could build it initially "perfect", due to the size of this thing, thermal expansion differences from one portion to another would throw everything akilter.
With a combination of the proper sensers, computers, and something like a power switch machine, final alignment may be the easiest of the multitude of problems to solve. The basic problems are are the physics - mass and inertia. (RR management inertia as well.)
dd
Seriousely though what is the advantage?
Parallel tracks take up less room when long trains are involved.
jeaton wrote: Haven't heard from CShaveRR on this one yet. Assume Carl is still on the floor, laughing, gasping for breath...
Jay, I was laughing hysterically back on Page One. Had to knock myself out last night before normal breathing would return. Fortunately, I didn't lose any sleep over it (and neither should you, Ed!).
Keep in mind that all of those radial tracks approaching this thing take up valuable real estate, too. As I said, you won't find many places in the real world where trackage could be configured that way.
We generate roughly fifty different classifications in our yard--not counting any intermodal operations. How many stalls were there in a 360-degree roundhouse?
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
ChuckCobleigh wrote: From the classic movie The Graduate:Mr. Robinson: Ben, this idea seems pretty half-baked.Ben: Oh no, sir. It's completely baked.I think that just about says it all.
From the classic movie The Graduate:
Mr. Robinson: Ben, this idea seems pretty half-baked.
Ben: Oh no, sir. It's completely baked.
I think that just about says it all.
Or the guy that dreamed this thing up was pretty "baked!"
Or if the table is 750 ft diameter, imagine the centrifical forces on a car near the outer edge.
And with the multiple alignment points, considered with the varying car lengths, how could you make the required multiple splits in a train without multiple stops and uncouplings?
ndbprr wrote:First comes the idea. The rest is just engineering details. The big problem is railroads that do not have foresight or try new things easily. The response accross the board will be, "We've never done that before".
The wail of a dying organization. Adapt or die. Lima was slow to build diesels and went from a powerhouse to poorhouse in a few short years. There are many examples of companies that failed to embrace new technology and ultimately failed.
Now I'm not saying every railroad should build one in every city, but I think it should be investigated and evaluated and tested.
rrnut282 wrote: ndbprr wrote:First comes the idea. The rest is just engineering details. The big problem is railroads that do not have foresight or try new things easily. The response accross the board will be, "We've never done that before".The wail of a dying organization. Adapt or die. Lima was slow to build diesels and went from a powerhouse to poorhouse in a few short years. There are many examples of companies that failed to embrace new technology and ultimately failed.Now I'm not saying every railroad should build one in every city, but I think it should be investigated and evaluated and tested.
Conversely, there are plenty of fools and idiots out there wanting to run major companies into the ground. Monster transfer tables or turntables in modern railroad service won't fly. If one is ever built, it will NEVER pay for itself. (and this surveyor has to put up with all the "magic" abilities that the public thinks GPS has, the same public that knows not the difference between accuracy and precision in the same manner that they know not the difference between GIS and GPS...)
ps - Carl not only fell on the floor in a fit of laughter, he darned near fell out of his hump tower!
Here are a couple of examples of where the railroads failed to see the advantages of a new idea:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/fontaine/fontaine.htm
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/holman/holman.htm
CShaveRR wrote: All right--I counted as many as 15 cars on that turntable. That's 750 feet minimum diameter, or about 35 tracks wide. Now, where are you going to find railroad trackage that you can steer from various compass points to a common center? Right--you'd have to acquire the land!Just how many locomotives are going to have to give up their prime movers to power this thing?And then there's the matter of all of the other problems previously mentioned. (too bad they don't have a razzberry smiley to go with this!)
All right--I counted as many as 15 cars on that turntable. That's 750 feet minimum diameter, or about 35 tracks wide.
Now, where are you going to find railroad trackage that you can steer from various compass points to a common center? Right--you'd have to acquire the land!
Just how many locomotives are going to have to give up their prime movers to power this thing?
And then there's the matter of all of the other problems previously mentioned.
(too bad they don't have a razzberry smiley to go with this!)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
OK--now look at the speed of this operation. The animation shows a train pulling (or shoving) onto the table. Immediately when it stops, the table starts rotating to its next destination.
Now, reality. The cars are pulled (or shoved) onto the table. Brakes have to be set, and the rest of the cars cut away. Doing this with air would be quicker at this point, but you'd lose time either bleeding the cars off or pumping them up for their next move. My centrifugal-force line may have been flippant, but you can bet that would be a factor if the cars weren't properly secured for this ride that they take.
There's also a human factor--somebody's got to couple and uncouple these cars, apply and release the brakes, and all of the other simple little things that these folks seem to have forgotten. I fail to see how crewmen riding on these moving surfaces all the time (with no control over their movement) can be a safe undertaking, much less moving from one table to the other, with no predictability of how far or in which direction they'll be going next (as someone said, this would have to be computerized for it to be more efficient than a conventional yard). Too much back-and-forth with two surfaces moving in opposite directions, and even the best railroader is going to have to take some time to orient himself.
So I think we've now debunked both the time and space advantages for this system. Cost wouldn't even come close to being effective. So what, pray tell, is left as an excuse for wasting time with it?
Thinking outside of the box is fine, but the lucrative railroad market has always attracted more than its share of ideas that were too far outside of the box. Here is one:
http://www.scripophily.net/hollocspeedt1.html
(Sorry Charles. I did not see that you had already posted the Holman Absurdity.)
I'll wait until someone builds one on their train layout. THAT might work.Maybe.
Chico
mudchicken wrote:Chico: Does the full scale version come with "the helpful hand" reaching down out of the clouds to fix all the little malfunctions?
No, but I bet they'll have a 1-800 number to call a customer support center in India or Pakistan.
Mark
rrnut282 wrote:Where to stop and make a cut would already be calculated by the computer prior to the trains arrival, no doubt. And if it takes another cut due to cars lengths it's not that big a deal. I think the idea behind this is to eliminate the wait for the conductor to walk back and throw all the switches needed to get the cut to the right track. And that's after getting permission to pull out on the lead, which is probably the longest wait of all.
The computer may make calculations, but it won't be going between the cars to close the brake line valves, then pulling the pin for the first breakpoint, then walking (running is a safety violation) to the next breakpoint in the train to repeat the operation. The computer animation shows the train magically breaking (I guess they're using Kadee uncoupler magnets) and recoupling itself, and notice how fast the brake lines are reconnected and the test is made after recoupling the train.
Steam Is King wrote: I'll wait until someone builds one on their train layout. THAT might work.Maybe.Chico
It'll have to have so many uncoupling magnets that it will affect compasses for miles...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
carnej1 wrote: In order to make this contraption even more complex and expensive how about using an hydraulic or electromagnetic retarder system (like they use in humpyards) to stop the cars on the turntable rings? Can these be modified to hold cars in place on a section of track in lieu of setting the brakes? And why not use under-track mounted car pushers to replace the trackmobiles? We can get the cost up well over half a billion, right?
"half a billion"?????? ONLY HALF???? That won't even cover the lobbying to get the Federal funds to start the engineering study.
Semper Vaporo wrote: carnej1 wrote: In order to make this contraption even more complex and expensive how about using an hydraulic or electromagnetic retarder system (like they use in humpyards) to stop the cars on the turntable rings? Can these be modified to hold cars in place on a section of track in lieu of setting the brakes? And why not use under-track mounted car pushers to replace the trackmobiles? We can get the cost up well over half a billion, right? "half a billion"?????? ONLY HALF???? That won't even cover the lobbying to get the Federal funds to start the engineering study.
The one thing that I will say in defense of this company is that they are proposing a privately funded project on private land. The Feds may blow a lot of money but they do not spend very much on freight rail, which is, after all, a private sector undertaking (and makes money) in the US. Its up to investors to bankroll this(or not).
carnej1 wrote: Semper Vaporo wrote: carnej1 wrote: In order to make this contraption even more complex and expensive how about using an hydraulic or electromagnetic retarder system (like they use in humpyards) to stop the cars on the turntable rings? Can these be modified to hold cars in place on a section of track in lieu of setting the brakes? And why not use under-track mounted car pushers to replace the trackmobiles? We can get the cost up well over half a billion, right? "half a billion"?????? ONLY HALF???? That won't even cover the lobbying to get the Federal funds to start the engineering study. The one thing that I will say in defense of this company is that they are proposing a privately funded project on private land. The Feds may blow a lot of money but they do not spend very much on freight rail, which is, after all, a private sector undertaking (and makes money) in the US. Its up to investors to bankroll this(or not).
Thank you for your interest in Railcars Sequencing Turntables, LLC. I am the Co-Chairman of the company, Fred H. Wertz. Below is some more detailed information on the functionality of the turntables to address your concerns.
Railroad Industry Landscape
According to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company managers, a train's railcar is actually moving only 18% of the time and sitting in a yard or other facility for the remaining 82% of the time. When sitting, the railcar is controlled by the railroad 55% of the time and customer 27% of the time. Each 9,000-foot-long mainline train moves goods valuing $5 million to $10 million, unfinished to finished. In such a lucrative industry, modernizing operations will have an exponential affect on total revenue.
The Railroad Industry faces problems that prevent it from running as efficiently as possible. At this time, there is not enough capacity with mainline trackage. Additionally, the handling of railcars at interchanges, flat yards, and hump yards is inefficient. These problems prevent the handling of a number of railcars in a timely manner, decreasing the amount of revenue created by these operations.
The R.S.T. Solution
The mainline 9,000 foot long consist (train) follows the mainline track lead half way across the turntables. Then, the head of consist and end of consist is simultaneously pushed onto the turntables and cut in blocks of railcars according to the predirected AEI (Automatic Equipment Indicator) or IRBO (Innovative Railroad Blocking Optimizer) manifest.
Railcars Sequencing Turntables can accommodate 60 foot railcars, 90 foot railcars, three (3) articulated container flatcars, five (5) articulated container flatcars, switching locomotives, mainline haul locomotives, track mobiles simultaneously, inbound and outbound.
The three (3) turntables total 1,018 feet in diameter and operate in unison or separately clockwise and counter clockwise. All of this blocking and spotting can be accomplished in two hours or less on 18 acres of land, having a solar-paneled structural steel dome roof.
R.S.T., LLC has developed a methodology for reducing idle railcar time and other inefficiencies inherent to the railroad industry. Specifically, the Railcar Sequencing Turntable which provides a superior alternative for handling railcars than the technology that currently exists in the Railroad Industry. This approach (in patent pending status with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) should reduce railcar dwell time and overall shipping time by upwards of 28%. The 24 index tracks on the turntables serve, at all tangents of the 360 degree circumference, the following functions:
For more information, please visit our website at http://www.freightturntables.com/. There is an animated presentation under the FAQ section on the site.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 973-729-2904 or by email at fred.wertz@freightturntables.com.
Mr. Wertz:
Thanks for coming on to explain your concept. How close are you to implementing your first system?
I think your system has some merit, but am curious about the practical applications of it. For instance, often dwell time is based on outbound schedules of the trains, often once per day for major terminals. Wouldnt the dwell time basically remain the same, or would this require multiple daily movements (such as intermodal schedules) to be effective?
Time is money. The "just in time" or Kanban method of inventory control implemented back in the 80's in the US was radical at the time, but drastically improved ROI by increasing asset turnover.
Also, what reliability factor do you foresee for this system? How would you address the issues raised by some on this forum that it is not a practical application?
Finally, do see this radically replacing the existing freight classification system, or application only in certain geographic markets?
ed
Ed, I hate to say this, but I don't think he's coming back....
turntablescochair wrote:For more information, please visit our website at http://www.freightturntables.com/. There is an animated presentation under the FAQ section on the site.If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 973-729-2904 or by email at fred.wertz@freightturntables.com.
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
A 9000' long train?????
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.