Bucyrus wrote: MichaelSol wrote: I suppose its the way the idea is presented on threads like this, which seem to be appearing frequently lately, that these are really bright ideas, there are "handsome returns" just waiting out there, but that all the rest of us are too "foolish" and "blind" to accept the brand new concept of higher loading, lower tare when, in fact, its less a matter of being "foolish" than more a matter that some people do their homework and add a dash of common sense to it, and some don't.I certainly did not mean to imply that.
MichaelSol wrote: I suppose its the way the idea is presented on threads like this, which seem to be appearing frequently lately, that these are really bright ideas, there are "handsome returns" just waiting out there, but that all the rest of us are too "foolish" and "blind" to accept the brand new concept of higher loading, lower tare when, in fact, its less a matter of being "foolish" than more a matter that some people do their homework and add a dash of common sense to it, and some don't.
I suppose its the way the idea is presented on threads like this, which seem to be appearing frequently lately, that these are really bright ideas, there are "handsome returns" just waiting out there, but that all the rest of us are too "foolish" and "blind" to accept the brand new concept of higher loading, lower tare when, in fact, its less a matter of being "foolish" than more a matter that some people do their homework and add a dash of common sense to it, and some don't.
I certainly did not mean to imply that.
And you didn't and you haven't. The specific words were used by another.
Bucyrus wrote:I use the term, penalty in reference to weight, merely as meaning weight that could be eliminated by some alternate design. But eliminating one penalty usually incurs other penalties as you mention. Aluminum eliminates the weight penalty of steel, but aluminum comes with the penalty of higher cost and less strength compared to steel.
And that's a pretty good summary. People think these ideas up like they are brand new ideas and as though railroads haven't been incrementally working on them for 150 years, quickly brand skeptics as "foolish", and then forget to even begin to think about 90% of the considerations that go into any "new" idea.
The tare-minimized integral unit train concept, for example. Sure, you could reduce tare, right along along with interchangeability, and create much higher inventory and repair costs. The point? Not sure, except that somebody isn't doing their homework. And it isn't that easy to reduce tare.
And instead of one freight car spec, you've got what? 20? 200? This returns railroads to the days of steam when every order was, practically speaking, for a custom piece of equipment. A sure fire way to drive the manufacturer nuts and the car department nuts. I won't even begin to suggest that someone is missing the big picture on that idea, or how expensive it would be to purchase equipment with less flexibility. And, I reiterate: net to tare isn't the real measure; empty return load ratio is. And if a company invests in specialized equipment, the likelihood of any return load ratio below 50% becomes negligble. The idea drives productivity down, and does not improve it.
But, it's more practical even than that. For the integrated train idea, one problem is: how do you turn the train?
You can't just put the engines on the other end and go back home anymore because the train comes apart. Is that worth 3-6 times the cost of the entire train itself to build loop tracks just so that one specialized train-set can go home?
Bucyrus wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: I'm not so sure about the idea of cars in a dedicated train having different strength characteristics though. The odds of manmade failures lead me to believe that you'd have to have warnings 10' tall on the sides of the cars, and someone would still put one in the wrong order.It would be physically impossible to change the order.
Murphy Siding wrote: I'm not so sure about the idea of cars in a dedicated train having different strength characteristics though. The odds of manmade failures lead me to believe that you'd have to have warnings 10' tall on the sides of the cars, and someone would still put one in the wrong order.
I'm not so sure about the idea of cars in a dedicated train having different strength characteristics though. The odds of manmade failures lead me to believe that you'd have to have warnings 10' tall on the sides of the cars, and someone would still put one in the wrong order.
It would be physically impossible to change the order.
Hmmm I guess I was viewing this as being something like a 200 car train, that has 10 different types of cars, depending on where they ride in the train. The first batch could ride anywhere from #1 to #20 position; the next batch from #21 to #40, etc. If the car in spot #122 has to be taken out of service, it could go back anywhere from #121 to #140.
If it would be physically impossible to change the order, that would mean they are built differently, from #1 to #200? So, like my example above, #122 has to go back into the #122 spot after it's returned from the repair shop?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
MichaelSol wrote: Bucyrus wrote: I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack. Well, I think the term "penalty" creates the unjustified presumption. I would use the terms "durable", "interchangeable", "highly flexible" and "time-tested", as well as "continuingly evolved". Not sure about the "penalty of slack". With slack, the starting coefficient of friction is pretty reasonable, without any slack, it is enormous.For specialized equipment, I might use the terms "production cost penalty", "maintenance penalty", "inventory penalty", "back-haul penalty", "congestion penalty", and "captive price penalty".
Bucyrus wrote: I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack.
I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack.
Well, I think the term "penalty" creates the unjustified presumption.
I would use the terms "durable", "interchangeable", "highly flexible" and "time-tested", as well as "continuingly evolved". Not sure about the "penalty of slack". With slack, the starting coefficient of friction is pretty reasonable, without any slack, it is enormous.
For specialized equipment, I might use the terms "production cost penalty", "maintenance penalty", "inventory penalty", "back-haul penalty", "congestion penalty", and "captive price penalty".
I use the term, penalty in reference to weight, merely as meaning weight that could be eliminated by some alternate design. But eliminating one penalty usually incurs other penalties as you mention. Aluminum eliminates the weight penalty of steel, but aluminum comes with the penalty of higher cost and less strength compared to steel.
MichaelSol wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: I would think that being able to make the cars lighter, with higher capacity, would mean the trains would/could be the same length, but with a higher total tonnage. I've always wondered, about coal mines and coal receivers that use dedicated equipment. It would seem that developing equipment that would allow you to haul more tonnage, in the same length of train, yet still fit through the receiver's dumper would pay some handsome returns.How?Equipment that is railroad owned but shipper specific carries inherent economic risks, including a negotiated price risk: the railroad is the hostage to the equipment, not the shipper. Further, car weight and capacity, for an econometric analysis, measures averages -- the average of loaded and empty, for which the economic impact is most strongly influenced by the overall empty return ratio, not the difference between the tare and loaded weight. The second most important influence is the interest rate on the equipment purchase. The third most important factor is productivity or utilization. Specialized equipment is especially sensitive, in all the wrong ways, to railroad congestion and variations in shipper demands. The fourth most important factor is route specific. Required drawbar force is the sum of several resistance forces which vary in extent and proportion with the operating conditions of the particular lines of railroad. These include grade resistance, curve resistance, train resistance, and acceleration resistance. Which drawbar strength need is that 110th car designed for, aside from the fact that it is the 110th car? Where do you put the DPU?Normally, experienced people talk in terms of economies of scale. This discussion seems designed to try and figure out just how to make production of railcars as specialized and customized, and expensive, as possible, with car specs and inventory needs multiplying like rabbits.
Murphy Siding wrote: I would think that being able to make the cars lighter, with higher capacity, would mean the trains would/could be the same length, but with a higher total tonnage. I've always wondered, about coal mines and coal receivers that use dedicated equipment. It would seem that developing equipment that would allow you to haul more tonnage, in the same length of train, yet still fit through the receiver's dumper would pay some handsome returns.
I would think that being able to make the cars lighter, with higher capacity, would mean the trains would/could be the same length, but with a higher total tonnage.
I've always wondered, about coal mines and coal receivers that use dedicated equipment. It would seem that developing equipment that would allow you to haul more tonnage, in the same length of train, yet still fit through the receiver's dumper would pay some handsome returns.
How?
Equipment that is railroad owned but shipper specific carries inherent economic risks, including a negotiated price risk: the railroad is the hostage to the equipment, not the shipper. Further, car weight and capacity, for an econometric analysis, measures averages -- the average of loaded and empty, for which the economic impact is most strongly influenced by the overall empty return ratio, not the difference between the tare and loaded weight. The second most important influence is the interest rate on the equipment purchase. The third most important factor is productivity or utilization. Specialized equipment is especially sensitive, in all the wrong ways, to railroad congestion and variations in shipper demands. The fourth most important factor is route specific. Required drawbar force is the sum of several resistance forces which vary in extent and proportion with the operating conditions of the particular lines of railroad. These include grade resistance, curve resistance, train resistance, and acceleration resistance. Which drawbar strength need is that 110th car designed for, aside from the fact that it is the 110th car? Where do you put the DPU?
Normally, experienced people talk in terms of economies of scale. This discussion seems designed to try and figure out just how to make production of railcars as specialized and customized, and expensive, as possible, with car specs and inventory needs multiplying like rabbits.
I understand your points about specialized equipment. I am only pointing out the inherent tare weight penalty on all cars in a loose-car system, and how a fixed car train-set can overcome that penalty as well as the penalty of slack. It is not my idea, and it is not even a new idea. I am not advocating it, and I am not even in a position to see all of the pros and cons of it in any application. However, it is one direction that the evolution of freight cars could take.
To your question about the 110th car:
I assume you are asking about the 110th car in a conventional loose-car train. As such, its design strength must be adequate to be the first car in any train, and be strong enough to pull what has generally become established as the longest practical train length, say around 200 cars. In short, that drawbar needs to be as strong as all drawbars are today. In a dedicated train-set of say 120 cars, where cars are permanently coupled, the 110th car's drawbar only needs to be strong enough to pull 10 cars because that 110th car will always have ten cars behind it.
Yes, but at some point in time one of the cars in the set would fail, develop a defect, and then the entire set would have to be bad ordered.
That's the major reason the unit train cars dedicated for coal, grain and such don't have semi permanent drawbars.
As for the cars themselves, the basic design and construction has pretty much reached its zenith...remember, the KISS rule applies...and also remember, if it can get bent or broken, it will get bent or broken.
Cars have to be rugged, able to withstand years of abuse with minimal repairs, other than the stuff you expect to wear, brake shoes, knuckles, draw bar keys and wheels...the whole concept is to keep it as simple and primitive as you can.
Sure, you can design an automatic un-coupler with and automatic air hose lacing device....but it wouldn't survive long when the car is humped repeatedly, or flat yard switched.
On the other hand, the basic knuckle and drawbar we use today can withstand being bypassed, or having the knuckle closed and getting a car or two kicked against it and still survive...and it is the same, basic technology that had been around for over a century...it is still used because it is simple, cheap to repair, and it works with a minimal amount of technology, a minimal amount of training, (all you have to do is lift the lever) and a minimal amount of maintenance.
As for car bodies...well, there are still four basic way to empty a car... either physically pick up the load, or through bottom chutes with air pressure or gravity doing the work, dump doors, or turn the car upside down, (or a variant of these).
So you might see a few changes, but what you do see will be building on these concepts...keep in mind the shippers and receivers have fixed plants that they will be reluctant to alter to accommodate new designs, unless it also increases their profit accordingly.
23 17 46 11
Murphy Siding wrote: It's pretty easy to say that nothing will be improved on, because it would cause all kinds of problems with the railroads, shippers, etc.. To suggest that there can't be any change for the better is to put a blind eye to the innovations and evolution of railcars in the past.... I see it as foolish to say that railcars can't evolve, as history has shown otherwise.
It's pretty easy to say that nothing will be improved on, because it would cause all kinds of problems with the railroads, shippers, etc.. To suggest that there can't be any change for the better is to put a blind eye to the innovations and evolution of railcars in the past.... I see it as foolish to say that railcars can't evolve, as history has shown otherwise.
Exactly who is "saying" and "suggesting" these things? I can't find a single post where anyone has stated any such thing, nor that any of the posters here deserve to be called either "foolish" or "blind".
Bucyrus wrote: So you can see that this would take some serious number crunching to find the optimum length and capacity for a dedicated train-set.
I agree. That's the part that makes me wonder-thinking that somewhere there is always somebody trying to build a better mousetrap, without re-inventing the wheel. It's pretty easy to say that nothing will be improved on, because it would cause all kinds of problems with the railroads, shippers, etc.. To suggest that there can't be any change for the better is to put a blind eye to the innovations and evolution of railcars in the past.
As I see it, coal cars have evolved a fair amount in the last 30 or so years; the shippers and the railroads have seemd to make that work to the benefit of both parties. I see it as foolish to say that railcars can't evolve, as history has shown otherwise.
Grand Central wrote: I am a great supporter of Unions, but... I wonder what they would say to all this, How many jobs would they lose? Would this be the reason these things may not come about?
I can think of a real world example of this. Back in the early 90's CN experimented with a concept called ecorail which involved slightly modified trailers which connected to a RoadRailer like bogie system. The train was supposed to use power and control modules (Think of MOW equipment power units) attached to bogies rather than being locomotive pulled. The whole idea was to operate with a single crew member (whose jo title would have been "operator" rather than engineer). The technical bugs couldn't be worked out but I read that the unions were fairly riled ..............
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Murphy Siding wrote: I would think that being able to make the cars lighter, with higher capacity, would mean the trains would/could be the same length, but with a higher total tonnage.
They could, but this is what I was trying to say in that last paragraph: All the cars in a 200-car dedicated train-set could get lighter from front to rear, and this would lower the tare weight. Likewise, in a 20-car dedicated train-set, all the cars could get lighter from front to rear. However, even the heaviest, first car in a 20-car set would be much lighter than many of the cars in a 200-car set. Theoretically, you could say that 180 of the cars in the 200-car dedicated set would be heavier than the heaviest car in the 20-car set. So on a per-car average, the shorter the set, the lighter the tare weight.
In a dedicated train-set, if the load weight remained the same as the same number of loose cars, the lower tare weight would simply increase fuel economy. If the load weight were increased to replace the reduction in tare weight, more total tonnage could be carried for the same fuel consumption of the same size conventional loose-car train. However, when you raise the capacity to match the reduction in tare weight, you need a stronger car for the added capacity. And this added strength adds tare weight. So you can see that this would take some serious number crunching to find the optimum length and capacity for a dedicated train-set.
Bucyrus wrote: I think I should retract what I said about dedicated train-sets being likely to be relatively short. I was mainly thinking of minimizing the amount of capital that would be tied up say for a repair to just one car in a dedicated train-set. But there are so many other factors that come into play that I don't see any one overriding reason to keep the consist short. It may very well be applicable with economic advantage to relatively long unit coal trains for example. However, in cases where a dedicated train-set is shorter than the general maximum length
I think I should retract what I said about dedicated train-sets being likely to be relatively short. I was mainly thinking of minimizing the amount of capital that would be tied up say for a repair to just one car in a dedicated train-set. But there are so many other factors that come into play that I don't see any one overriding reason to keep the consist short. It may very well be applicable with economic advantage to relatively long unit coal trains for example.
However, in cases where a dedicated train-set is shorter than the general maximum length
Well . . . I kind of thought that the RR's were more into hiring new employees. IIRC the rule of thumb correctly, as compared to 1980, by the year 2000 the RR's were hauling twice as much freight with a third fewer employees. There seems to be quite a need for hoggers lately and on-ground people, too.
Murphy Siding wrote: Bucyrus wrote: but with a dedicated train-set, one of the other major advantages is that there is no slack. Slack is a product of the automatic coupler with its operational tolerance, and there would be no automatic couplers in a dedicated train-set. ??? No slack? How would you start a heavy train? I always understood, that slack helped the locomotive start pulling a train one car at a time. Bucyrus wrote: Moreover, because dedicated train-sets would likely be shorter than average loose-car trains, all the cars in the train-set would be structurally lighter than a loose-car Why would it be shorter?
Bucyrus wrote: but with a dedicated train-set, one of the other major advantages is that there is no slack. Slack is a product of the automatic coupler with its operational tolerance, and there would be no automatic couplers in a dedicated train-set.
but with a dedicated train-set, one of the other major advantages is that there is no slack. Slack is a product of the automatic coupler with its operational tolerance, and there would be no automatic couplers in a dedicated train-set.
Bucyrus wrote: Moreover, because dedicated train-sets would likely be shorter than average loose-car trains, all the cars in the train-set would be structurally lighter than a loose-car
Moreover, because dedicated train-sets would likely be shorter than average loose-car trains, all the cars in the train-set would be structurally lighter than a loose-car
Why would it be shorter?
Slack can be used to start a train, but from what I understand, it is usually not essential. If I am not mistaken, taking advantage of slack to start a train was more common and more necessary pre-diesel, and in earlier eras. However, this was not the purpose of slack. Slack is unavoidable as being necessary clearance for the moving parts of the coupler, whether automatic or link and pin (unless you have a coupler system that takes out the slack after a joint has been made). And because slack runs in and out, it can accumulate force. To prevent coupler breakage from slack surge, the draft gear is sprung. The sprung movement of the draft gear adds to the potential movement of slack. So my assumption is that with permanent, slack-free couplers, you don't need cushioned draft gear.
However, in cases where a dedicated train-set is shorter than the general maximum length trains of today, all of the cars of the dedicated set can be structually lighter than the loose-cars that must be able to stand being toward the front of a long conventional train and subject to the slack in that long train. So that is an incentive to make dedicated train-sets relatively short.
phbrown wrote: You also wouldn't need a bleed line, as you could just tell the cars to bleed themselves via the radio link. -Peter
You also wouldn't need a bleed line, as you could just tell the cars to bleed themselves via the radio link.
-Peter
That is true. A feature could also be incorporated that would eliminate the need to manually set and release handbrakes.
I've heard of two downsides of electro-pneumatic brakes:
1. Older equipment (naturally) doesn't have the control wire.
2. The state of the brake pipe isn't the same for ECP and non-ECP usage, since a non-ECP car (and anything behind it) has to use the brake pressure for signaling brake applications as well as for charging the reservoir.
Does anybody know why #1 couldn't be done wirelessly? After all, if you can reliably talk to your EOT device from the head end via radio, couldn't you reliably talk to whatever's in the middle? Granted, it'd require an automated set-up protocol (it's Not Good if somebody else's engine winds up controlling the brakes on your train), but that's a solvable problem (see: wireless LAN's, with the advantage in this case that you actually have some control over the hardware).
Once the wire requirement is relaxed, then the ECP-equipped cars behind the first non-ECP car become, in effect, additional EOT's. Anything in front of the first non-ECP car is in a solid ECP block, and can run in ECP mode. As the number of ECP cars in the fleet increases, you get larger and larger proportions of your trains running in ECP mode, but it all still works in the traditional mode.
Is this simply a cost-benefit thing? What I've described is surely feasible technically (correct me if I'm wrong, naturally).
Peace,
--Peter
Murphy Siding wrote: CShaveRR wrote: I'd have to check the book (which I have),There's a book by Kneiling? Can you provide me with the name of it please?
CShaveRR wrote: I'd have to check the book (which I have),
I'd have to check the book (which I have),
The name of the book is/was Integral Train Systems, and it was published by Kalmbach in 1969.
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)
CShaveRR wrote: I'd have to check the book (which I have), but I don't think John Kneiling advocated less structural strength as one went further back in his integral trains. In fact, he advocated mid-train power. Today we have distributed power, often shoving against the rear of the train. I'd rather have the drawbars be just as strong for anything that could happen with the slack back there.The drawback with dedicated trains is that if one part breaks down, the whole thing is lost for a time (including the power, if I remember Kneiling's stuff right). Despite the fact that locomotives spend too much time idling as it is, the loss of power and cars isn't going to be tolerated.It's possible, now that railroads have come up with a way of changing out wheels without breaking the train, that you'll see some sort of compromise along these lines--cars similar to today's articulated in units of five or six, with drawbars between them. It won't save much weight, but it would save moving parts, and eliminate a bit of slack action.As for a separate line to bleed an entire train, I don't see a need. One rarely has to stand and wait for the air to bleed completely any more--just gve the bleeder rod a push or pull and move on. If a whole train is being bled off, it's most likely in a yard where the train is being walked for inspection anyway, so no time is being lost by the manual bleeding. And if a hand brake (more likely plural) has to be applied to a cut of cars being left somewhere, I'd rather have the air applied at the time to give me a hand cranking it up--impossible if everything's going to be bled off.
I'd have to check the book (which I have), but I don't think John Kneiling advocated less structural strength as one went further back in his integral trains. In fact, he advocated mid-train power. Today we have distributed power, often shoving against the rear of the train. I'd rather have the drawbars be just as strong for anything that could happen with the slack back there.
The drawback with dedicated trains is that if one part breaks down, the whole thing is lost for a time (including the power, if I remember Kneiling's stuff right). Despite the fact that locomotives spend too much time idling as it is, the loss of power and cars isn't going to be tolerated.
It's possible, now that railroads have come up with a way of changing out wheels without breaking the train, that you'll see some sort of compromise along these lines--cars similar to today's articulated in units of five or six, with drawbars between them. It won't save much weight, but it would save moving parts, and eliminate a bit of slack action.
As for a separate line to bleed an entire train, I don't see a need. One rarely has to stand and wait for the air to bleed completely any more--just gve the bleeder rod a push or pull and move on. If a whole train is being bled off, it's most likely in a yard where the train is being walked for inspection anyway, so no time is being lost by the manual bleeding. And if a hand brake (more likely plural) has to be applied to a cut of cars being left somewhere, I'd rather have the air applied at the time to give me a hand cranking it up--impossible if everything's going to be bled off.
I would have to check back into my Trains collection to refresh my recollection of what all Kneiling had to say in relation to this matter. I have never seen his book, only his columns in Trains. I recall him often making the point about loose-cars needing to have the strength necessary to withstand being first out in a long train. So the dedicated consist was a way to fix the position of each car so it could be designed only as strong as necessary.
In the case of a 100+ car coal train, the difference in tractive load between the first car and the tenth car, for instance, would not be that great. It would therefore probably not be practical to make tiny incremental reductions in strength to each car. By the time you got to the tenth car, you might only have reduced the weight on that car by 200 pounds. So you would probably have cars designed to specific strength classes that correspond to their position in a train. The first ten cars, for example, might be identical, and of the class for the number-one position. The next ten cars would be for the number-two position class, and be slightly lighter.
I do recall Kneiling advocating distributed power in a dedicated train-set. I believe he viewed it as somewhat of an extension of the concept of reducing the strength from the front to back of the train. Distrubuting the power tends to eliminate the need to distribute the strength. Either approach could reduce the tare weight, or both approaches could work together with each contributing to the cause.
You mentioned the need for car strength to withstand slack as well as tractive force, and that slack can affect cars regardless of their position in the train. That is true, but with a dedicated train-set, one of the other major advantages is that there is no slack. Slack is a product of the automatic coupler with its operational tolerance, and there would be no automatic couplers in a dedicated train-set.
Another major advantage of the dedicated train-set is its ability to utilize a superior electric or electro-pneumatic brake system. Because the cars in the dedicated train-set do not have to interchange, they can be freely upgraded with non-standard brake systems. In a loose-car train not only is there slack forces, but also those forces are further exacerbated by the irregular affects of conventional air brake operations. The destructive braking/slack forces are eliminated in a dedicated train-set because it has no slack and it has perfectly distributed braking throughout.
The bleed line would not be utilized to bleed cars that were being set out. They would be left with the air set as usual, so the mechanical advantage for applying a hand brake provided by the air set would still be available. The bleed line would be to bleed cuts of cars that are going to be switched.
I am not advocating dedicated train-sets; only pointing them out, along with automatic air couplers and bleed train lines, as having exceptional potential. But there are a lot of drawbacks as well. The more an industry grows and the more it becomes standardized, the harder it is to make big changes. Yet, I think the possible big changes need to be dreamed up and kept in mind. For a long time, it will appear that too much is stacked against them, but the big picture keeps changing, and one day all the pieces may line up to make a big change doable.
For example, there are processes in the energy business that previously were economically infeasible, yet as oil prices rise, they suddenly become economically feasible.
In regard to dedicated train-sets, that idea actually was advocated strongly by John Kneiling. It is true that the cars need to be the same structurally throughout the train-set in terms of their weight carrying ability. But they don't need to be the same structurally in terms of their couplers, draft gear, and the structural portion of their center sills that exceed the load carrying requirements. I am referring to the portion of the center sill structure that is needed in order for a loose-car to withstand the pull transmitted through it if it were the first car in a long train. I don't have exact numbers, but I suspect you could take several tons out of that car's structure if it were always the last car of the train.
So in a dedicated train-set, theoretically, every car would be structurally different, with the structure and its weight diminishing from the first car to the last car. Moreover, because dedicated train-sets would likely be shorter than average loose-car trains, all the cars in the train-set would be structurally lighter than a loose-car. So this dedicated train-set concept does have the potential to eliminate a very significant amount of tare weight in a train. And as fuel prices rise, this idea becomes more and more attractive.
CShaveRR wrote: Murph, I think cola movements in dedicated trainsets would probably be a fizzle.
Murph, I think cola movements in dedicated trainsets would probably be a fizzle.
CShaveRR wrote: Murph, I think cola movements in dedicated trainsets would probably be a fizzle.Having been an observer of freight cars for a pretty long time (check out my signature), I've often been surprised to see what comes up and when. The "radical" changes have usually been something that appeared once before, a long time ago.There was a company called Tomco Railway Supply Company or similar, and it shipped lumber on a fleet of bulkhead flat cars with A-frames back in the 1960s. Yet it took another decade or more for that strange idea to evolve into the center-partition cars that are now the prime choice for lumber transport (meanwhile, somebody made the partition bear the load, eliminating the center sill and increasing capacity).Aluminum coal cars? Southern was doing that in the 1960s as well, with its Silversides gons--they held up pretty well! But other than Southern and Detroit Edison, you didn't see the aluminum cars anywhere else until the mid-1980s.The Budd Company (remember them?) introduced a flat car called the Lo-Pac 2000 back in the late 1970s, IIRC. Its original intention was to transport truck trailers in wells between the wheelsets, reducing clearance requirements, possibly for east-coast intermodal service. In 1983, Thrall got hold of the idea, and [i]voila![/] the articulated stack car was born. It eventually beat out the bulkhead-type stack car, and nowadays well cars for doublestack are practically all you see.Along the way, there have been many ideas that have come and gone--the LU cars, with nothing but doors on the sides, really couldn't protect the lumber any better than plastic wrap and Center-beam flat cars. Hi-cube cars--nothing has replaced them yet, so they'll become extinct pretty quickly (60-foot cars have survived and grown taller).Can you improve on the auto rack? People have tried to articulate it, lower the load, do both, but nothing has been able to supplant the 89-foot flat cars with racks on top. The racks have improved for lading protection, but take off all that sheeting and you're looking at something pretty close to the way it was in the 1960s!Predictions:Tank cars: built tougher; might need to become 315K just to support all of the shielding and other safety "improvements" without sacrificing capacity. But what else can be done? Walkways and center sills have been eliminated, except in some specialized cases, and regulations prevent them from getting much larger.Bulkhead flat cars: either low bulkheads for steel service, or center-beam for everything else. The longer and/or lower FBCs that have been tried won't make it.Auto racks: same old same old. Possibly three-packs of 89-foot units, drawbar-connected, but nothing else seems to work.Gondolas: higher sides, yet again. Maybe requirements that loads can't protrude over sides or ends (we can only hope!).Covered hoppers: They got bigger when the 286K cars came around, but the big cars can't go everywhere just yet. But when 315K becomes more widespread, you'll see up to 7000-cubic-foot cars, as tall as hi-cube box cars (well, not quite--there's that center-of-gravity thing to worry about), with existing cars cascading down for use in transporting denser commodities,Coal cars: when tracks can accommodate them more widely, you'll see capacity go up to 315K gross rail load, with an increase in height to accommodate the added tonnage--can't become longer without replacing the dumpers everywhere.General: ECP brakes. Who-knows-what to increase the load-to-tare ratio.Cars that will disappear soon will be hi-cube box cars (next 15 years or so) and the classic mechanical reefers (probably in about seven years).
Having been an observer of freight cars for a pretty long time (check out my signature), I've often been surprised to see what comes up and when. The "radical" changes have usually been something that appeared once before, a long time ago.
There was a company called Tomco Railway Supply Company or similar, and it shipped lumber on a fleet of bulkhead flat cars with A-frames back in the 1960s. Yet it took another decade or more for that strange idea to evolve into the center-partition cars that are now the prime choice for lumber transport (meanwhile, somebody made the partition bear the load, eliminating the center sill and increasing capacity).
Aluminum coal cars? Southern was doing that in the 1960s as well, with its Silversides gons--they held up pretty well! But other than Southern and Detroit Edison, you didn't see the aluminum cars anywhere else until the mid-1980s.
The Budd Company (remember them?) introduced a flat car called the Lo-Pac 2000 back in the late 1970s, IIRC. Its original intention was to transport truck trailers in wells between the wheelsets, reducing clearance requirements, possibly for east-coast intermodal service. In 1983, Thrall got hold of the idea, and [i]voila![/] the articulated stack car was born. It eventually beat out the bulkhead-type stack car, and nowadays well cars for doublestack are practically all you see.
Along the way, there have been many ideas that have come and gone--the LU cars, with nothing but doors on the sides, really couldn't protect the lumber any better than plastic wrap and Center-beam flat cars. Hi-cube cars--nothing has replaced them yet, so they'll become extinct pretty quickly (60-foot cars have survived and grown taller).
Can you improve on the auto rack? People have tried to articulate it, lower the load, do both, but nothing has been able to supplant the 89-foot flat cars with racks on top. The racks have improved for lading protection, but take off all that sheeting and you're looking at something pretty close to the way it was in the 1960s!
Predictions:
Tank cars: built tougher; might need to become 315K just to support all of the shielding and other safety "improvements" without sacrificing capacity. But what else can be done? Walkways and center sills have been eliminated, except in some specialized cases, and regulations prevent them from getting much larger.
Bulkhead flat cars: either low bulkheads for steel service, or center-beam for everything else. The longer and/or lower FBCs that have been tried won't make it.
Auto racks: same old same old. Possibly three-packs of 89-foot units, drawbar-connected, but nothing else seems to work.
Gondolas: higher sides, yet again. Maybe requirements that loads can't protrude over sides or ends (we can only hope!).
Covered hoppers: They got bigger when the 286K cars came around, but the big cars can't go everywhere just yet. But when 315K becomes more widespread, you'll see up to 7000-cubic-foot cars, as tall as hi-cube box cars (well, not quite--there's that center-of-gravity thing to worry about), with existing cars cascading down for use in transporting denser commodities,
Coal cars: when tracks can accommodate them more widely, you'll see capacity go up to 315K gross rail load, with an increase in height to accommodate the added tonnage--can't become longer without replacing the dumpers everywhere.
General: ECP brakes. Who-knows-what to increase the load-to-tare ratio.
Cars that will disappear soon will be hi-cube box cars (next 15 years or so) and the classic mechanical reefers (probably in about seven years).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.