It was brought up in a thread about how this German cargo sprinter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv4tIuIJzls can offer more flexible shipping options for smaller, direct to "shipping dock" loads.
It has not caught on in Europe, but here in the U.S. I am curious of what is keeping this from being successful or even recognized, besides possibly lobbyists.
Anyone think these could possibly work out in the eastern half of the country? I am not saying these are going to replace conventional Intermodal trains, but grab more customers that are looking for flexibility with larger shipments.
Looks good on paper initially, but, and here are some big buts.
1. Nothing in the way of crash protection for the crew(s).
2. It only needs one crew (driver) Gasp!
3. We need to change the oil so the whole unit comes out of service.
4. Not sure how well it would play with full size trains either.
5. And worst of all, it may make some sense.
John
Kind of an interesting idea, but I would think that you railed a couple of potentially valid issues:
Could it interface with current equipment?
Would FRA rules and regulations preclude its operation in this country?
How would the regulators in Canada or Mexico view its operations?
And the potentially major issue- Third party operations on various railroads? Open Access?
At any rate the "Sprinter" seems to have a similar look as the MPM that Herzog Companies fields for RR MOW activities; Linked here: http://www.herzogcompanies.com/railroad_services_mpm.php
First note in clip that the "driver" steps on rails to access the train....safety no, no!
But after that, there seems to be some merit in the idea. The Reading tried a service like that in its gasping days...call and they'd send an engine and crew to pick up your cars and move them anywhere on the Reading at that time...but crew size and lack of industry put the concept away.
After we get over the US heavy guage problems, there are quite a few marketing opportunities here. Without going into power details, etc, how about for coal/mineral hauls from less than unit train load mines; specific car parts from one plant to another as in "assemblyline" transportation. Wise planning shippers could actually own and specify for their own purposes.
A school of thought is that short trains are actually faster than long trains keeping traffic flowing at a profitable rate. Therefore, depending on how long is too long, a one or two man crew might actually work to move more freight faster over certain routes than is performed today. (DRGW used to successfully run short trains fast and often, keeping the line fluid and delivering the service. One hundred or more car trains with a two man crew may look good on paper, but on the road they don't prove the profitability nor reliabilty when service is on the line.).
Questions: Any chance these could be mu'd so that a bunch of these could be gathered together to make a longer train with each unit's power to be on line? Do these come in 2, 4, 6, etc, car length configurations? Can they be broken apart and remixed and redirected (without dropping back to box car mentality railroading)?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The clip mentioned MUing, not not clear how many could be coupled. Technologically it sounds advanced, with true auto couplers, electronic disk brakes, etc. Compatibility with other equipment would seem to be irrelevant. One major, potentially fatal stumbling block would be crew size (1) and the rail unions.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
As for the rail unions, come on! They are not stupid and they know where they stand today. So if a service oriented program came along by some railroad that said instead of running one 40, 50, 100 car train with two men, we want to run up to 10 trains, don't you think the union would cherish the eight more jobs and work with the railroad to develop the service and the business? Its up to both sides to make it happen, and if there are opportunities today I don't think either side is going to block it.
I agree that it seems like it would benefit engineers, rails and small industries as well as the general public. But, if this forum is representative of some sentiments, I would doubt it.
I see three big issues; would the operator be an engineer or a truck driver? Any unionized railroad this will be an issue.There will also be a question of jurisdiction. Could states claim jurisdiction that they are motor vehicles and not trains I could see the state police wanting to enforce speed laws and motor vehicle laws on them. However, I see the big issue is shipper acceptance. The traditional shipping dock gives shippers a lot of advantages that they would lose using this.One of the biggest is that the shippers employees both load and unload the trailer. The trucker simply backs into the dock. Here, how would the shipper be benefited? You would have to build something else, and that is something most shippers simply won't do.
Thanks for that Original Post and the link to the video - about 8 mins. long. I collect info on ideas like this, and that's a new one for me.
Two major problems, at least, not mentioned above:
1. As a intermodal unit, it needs to be loaded and unloaded. Presently that only happens at a handful of large, mechanized terminals. While that adds a few dollars in costs and a couple of hours to the transit time, even more troublesome is the cost of the 'dray' from the shipper to the starting terminal, and from the ending terminal to the receiver. That is essentially an Over-The-Road truck operation, and has the same costs and speeds. So unless the shipper/ receiver are really close to one of those terminals, or it's a long-haul move or a specialized niche market, it's hard to see how the portion on the rails can save enough time and money to compensate for those delays and added costs.
2. Track capacity constraints, especially on the portion of the trip that's on a busy main line. Each train requires a couple miles of unoccupied track in front and in back of it for safety separation. Putting more than just a few of these on a busy main line may soak up all of the available 'slots' in the schedule, for not much revenue compared to alternative trains and loads - say, 280 or more containers on a double-stack train. If it's a branch line that sees only a few trains a day, this would not be a problem - but identifying a move that is exclusively on such lines and never goes near a high-volume main line is going to be a challenge. This might be mitigated by scheduling a fleet of them to MU-together and run as a single train, but then that coordination problem is added in.
I can see possibilities, but it will require detailed knowledge of the market and routes, careful and comprehensive analysis, and a 'critical mass' of terminals and trains to make it run well enough with enough volume to be profitable.
- Paul North.
aricat I see three big issues; would the operator be an engineer or a truck driver? Any unionized railroad this will be an issue.There will also be a question of jurisdiction. Could states claim jurisdiction that they are motor vehicles and not trains I could see the state police wanting to enforce speed laws and motor vehicle laws on them. However, I see the big issue is shipper acceptance. The traditional shipping dock gives shippers a lot of advantages that they would lose using this.One of the biggest is that the shippers employees both load and unload the trailer. The trucker simply backs into the dock. Here, how would the shipper be benefited? You would have to build something else, and that is something most shippers simply won't do.
Aricat, you are picking fights which probably won't develop whe you discuss unions and personnel. As long as it is on rails only the railroad and its governing agencies have juristiction; you've invented a problem where none exist. As for the shipper and his proposed problems, this is a new technology and tool which if adapted is adapted without worry of what is happening now or happened before.
Until PTC is installed, I don't see the FRA allowing this to co-mingle with full-size trains. BUT, a similar system might be worked out with small road-switchers (MP15s, GP40-2s, etc) plus a couple of the many stored spine cars. It would take some work to make it profitable and adapt it to the US rail network, but it's more viable at the moment than a beefed-up truck running with full-size trains.
paul why does a train need a few miles both directions of clear track? we run in each others block all the time. and the only rule i know of now is a passenger train must have 2 blocks ahead and behind him cleared at all time
It is true that there is the issue of loading/unloading the container from the train.
I see it as building smaller intermodal facilities to be built in smaller cities and industrial zones, to encourage that option on using this vehicle. They don't have to be these massive intermodal terminals like we are familiar with.
OR
Having the companies have their warehouses located right by the tracks with a crane to be used to lift the container right on the dock. I think they could also modify the sprinter with a flexi-van concept of turning the table the container is resting on and push the container onto the warehouse dock.
Brought up earlier is how these will intermingle with conventional trains. I brought it up before in the past, and I bring it up again; We need to build up the main routes for these smaller, faster sprinters to pass up the larger, slower freights. Mulit-track routes (kind of like highways) faster trains passing slower ones on a parallel track and not affecting the other trains cruising speed. Not brief locations where one train waits so the other can pass.
I think this could really work if there would be enough committed shippers to try this out with the railroads and if it works, the concept will spread. Course this is all based on shippers and receivers, willing to locate closer to the tracks, and have this massive shift. This would have to be massive undertaking over time.
BT CPSO 266 It was brought up in a thread about how this German cargo sprinter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv4tIuIJzls can offer more flexible shipping options for smaller, direct to "shipping dock" loads. It has not caught on in Europe, but here in the U.S. I am curious of what is keeping this from being successful or even recognized, besides possibly lobbyists. Anyone think these could possibly work out in the eastern half of the country? I am not saying these are going to replace conventional Intermodal trains, but grab more customers that are looking for flexibility with larger shipments.
One of my quirky interests is the history of the "Integral Train" concept which has been kicking around the international industry since the 60's. The Cargosprinter is certainly an embodiment of that idea.
However, I note that there have been attempts to introduce Cargosprimnter operations in Germany, the UK, and Australia, and so far, none of the experiments has proved to be viable economically. So it id difficult to see how it would succeed in the U.S.
A similiar system was the CSX/CP Iron Highway which got as far as prototype stage (though the trainsets never had their self propulsion systems installed and were pulled by locomotives). This was further developed by CP into the "Expressway" RO/RO trailer carrying trainsets, so the idea had some merit.
The original "Iron Highway" proposal:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=sj48AAAAEBAJ
The Integral Train seems to be one of those ideas whose time is "forever yet to come"..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 BT CPSO 266 It was brought up in a thread about how this German cargo sprinter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv4tIuIJzls can offer more flexible shipping options for smaller, direct to "shipping dock" loads. It has not caught on in Europe, but here in the U.S. I am curious of what is keeping this from being successful or even recognized, besides possibly lobbyists. Anyone think these could possibly work out in the eastern half of the country? I am not saying these are going to replace conventional Intermodal trains, but grab more customers that are looking for flexibility with larger shipments. One of my quirky interests is the history of the "Integral Train" concept which has been kicking around the international industry since the 60's. The Cargosprinter is certainly an embodiment of that idea. However, I note that there have been attempts to introduce Cargosprimnter operations in Germany, the UK, and Australia, and so far, none of the experiments has proved to be viable economically. So it id difficult to see how it would succeed in the U.S. A similiar system was the CSX/CP Iron Highway which got as far as prototype stage (though the trainsets never had their self propulsion systems installed and were pulled by locomotives). This was further developed by CP into the "Expressway" RO/RO trailer carrying trainsets, so the idea had some merit. The original "Iron Highway" proposal: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=sj48AAAAEBAJ The Integral Train seems to be one of those ideas whose time is "forever yet to come"..
Yes, John (Knieling).
That thing looks like a toy. Sure it looks good, but can it handle the rigors of daily service? And how many of these toys are you going to couple together before you just fire up the GP38 and run some real freight? MOW has been slowly using some Brandt trucks, but I heard of at least one division/line that banished them due to their slow speeds.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Would you want to be in that cab when it meets something else? That is why the PRR went to the GG1 and streamlined P5a cab location after a couple of wrecks involving deaths in the 1930's.
The PRR's center-cab location was the result of a grade crossing accident in NJ involving an early box-cab P5 that killed one or both members of the crew, not a railroad-only accident*. Grade crossings are still a concern, but the degree of risk and exposure to damage and injury/death would depend mostly on the speed of the train. Also, Amtrak's P40 and Genesis units don't have a lot of front-end protection, but they seem to do OK, as well as any number of cab-car leading push-pull commuter operations.
*As to that kind of accident, the response I've seen or heard most often from a supervisory official type is to the effect of ''Mister, you do your job right and that will never happen to you.''
henry6 First note in clip that the "driver" steps on rails to access the train....safety no, no!
As far as I understand in Europe the rule is one must step on the rail when crossing tracks. (oppasite of US "rules"). [Europeans trip on the rail, Americans slip apparently] so who are the goofs? But it's the rules .
Anyways, it's the concept that counts. Adapt the idea to North America. Put a Genset in front of one or more spine cars and you effectively have a legal equivalant of a s"Sprinter". One or two operaters, safety, small capacity for unit train like short hauls. Keep it single decker for easy fast load/unload unless facilitys exist for double stack.
This is a concept in search of a market. That's backwards.
To be successful you start with market potential and develop a concept to meet the market need.
Most posters are looking for a place to use this tool. That won't work. Start with a job that needs to be done and come up with a tool to do the job.
greyhounds Start with a job that needs to be done and come up with a tool to do the job.
TH&B [snip] Anyways, it's the concept that counts. Adapt the idea to North America. Put a Genset in front of one or more spine cars and you effectively have a legal equivalant of a s"Sprinter". One or two operaters, safety, small capacity for unit train like short hauls. Keep it single decker for easy fast load/unload unless facilitys exist for double stack.
I believe a 700 HP genset weighs about 7,500 lbs on a skid, though it might be a little wide to fit crosswise. But I saw a 1500 KW version inside what looked like a 20 ft. long intermodal container at about 25,000 lbs., so it would fit right in - and take the place of a regular container there, complete with fuel tanks and radiators, etc. - not sure about dynamic braking capability, though. What that would amount to is a 'mini-loco' - and then I wonder about what FRA 92-day inspections, etc. would be required for it. But if it's in a box, just lift it off for inspection and servicing, and replace it with another module, connect the cables, and off it goes. Remind me to post the links to those, or at least better description. To be continued . . .
carnej1 One of my quirky interests is the history of the "Integral Train" concept which has been kicking around the international industry since the 60's. The Cargosprinter is certainly an embodiment of that idea. However, I note that there have been attempts to introduce Cargosprimnter operations in Germany, the UK, and Australia, and so far, none of the experiments has proved to be viable economically. So it id difficult to see how it would succeed in the U.S. A similiar system was the CSX/CP Iron Highway which got as far as prototype stage (though the trainsets never had their self propulsion systems installed and were pulled by locomotives). This was further developed by CP into the "Expressway" RO/RO trailer carrying trainsets, so the idea had some merit. The original "Iron Highway" proposal: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=sj48AAAAEBAJ The Integral Train seems to be one of those ideas whose time is "forever yet to come"..
Thanks for that link ! We seem to share a lot of the same interests and views on this - not that everybody has to agree with my views, but it's nice to know there's someone else that at least understands the discussion, even if we might disagree what it means and whether or not it'll work in a real-world 2010 railroad application, as contrasted with the industry 50 years ago. Now there might be . . . oh, what, maybe 5 or 6 of us, altogether ?
greyhounds This is a concept in search of a market. That's backwards
This is a concept in search of a market. That's backwards
Yes. Keeping in mind that this "European" concept is not even successfull in Europe.
But, could it also be a problem with the law ? In theory the unit train should be equaly at home short or long haul. But the US laws favour long haul over short haul.
TH&B As far as I understand in Europe the rule is one must step on the rail when crossing tracks. (oppasite of US "rules"). [Europeans trip on the rail, Americans slip apparently] so who are the goofs? But it's the rules .
I heard the reason for "not stepping on the rail" had nothing to do with tripping hazards, but had everything to do with electrification and broken bond wires/joints.
The US rail system has many points of capacity restraints when dealing with major market areas...areas where the volume necessary for a single CargoSprinter would most likely be either originated or terminated. A 90 meter train, in such territory would be a waste of valuable track capacity, track capacity that is predicated upon the 'normal' 9000 foot train.
When in motion, all trains occupy a signal occupancy block...those blocks in most modern installations are being lengthened to approximately 3 miles between signals. To obtain a Clear signal indication, at least 2 blocks ahead of the train must be clear of trains, some signal systems are configured to have the requirement of having 3 blocks clear of trains to obtain a Clear signal. The signal system doesn't know if the train occupying the block is 100 feet long or 10000 feet long...it knows the block is occupied by a train that the system must provide protection for.
Wabash states that he runs on 'Approach' indications and 'Restricting' indications, which is the normal course of railroading and a routine occurrence....When running on other than Clear signal indications the train is not being operated at track speed. When operating under an Approach indication the train is being operated so as to be able to STOP at the next signal and taking actions to reduce the trains speed to nominally 1/2 the track speed for the territory upon passing the Approach indication. When operating on a Restricting signal, the train is being operated at Restricted Speed - a speed no greater than 15 or 20 MPH (depends on the carriers rules) that will permit stopping the train within 1/2 the range of vision, short of train or other track obstruction. PTC when implemented, may bring some changes to these operations.
I would not want to be on a CargoSprinter if it had an impact with current US rail equipment.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Engineer vs. Truck Driver? What's the difference? They are, mostly all, members of the "Teamsters Union". I will reserve judgement until they find Jimmy Hoffa and see what he has to say. Go for it! Dig up all of the New Jersey landfills, the "Piney Woods" and the seashores! Stay away from Staten Island's 'Fresh Kill'! (Hint!!!).
Hays
BNSFwatcher Engineer vs. Truck Driver? What's the difference? They are, mostly all, members of the "Teamsters Union". I will reserve judgement until they find Jimmy Hoffa and see what he has to say. Go for it! Dig up all of the New Jersey landfills, the "Piney Woods" and the seashores! Stay away from Staten Island's 'Fresh Kill'! (Hint!!!). Hays
zugmann TH&B As far as I understand in Europe the rule is one must step on the rail when crossing tracks. (oppasite of US "rules"). [Europeans trip on the rail, Americans slip apparently] so who are the goofs? But it's the rules . I heard the reason for "not stepping on the rail" had nothing to do with tripping hazards, but had everything to do with electrification and broken bond wires/joints.
I wonder if it could be both and a few other things as well. That bond wire/joint thing is a real issue on some tracks. One crossing I got through has a rail section that drops about 6" or so everytime a train goes over it. Wonder what'll occur with that much movement over time--
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.