Can Cargo Sprinters be used here in the US?

[PNWRMNM]

Bucyrus,

I hope you are right about the FRA becoming a conduit for public funding of freight rail infrastructure improvements, but I do not expect to see it.  So far all I see is smoke.

Henry,

I have said and will say nothing here about HSR or where the technology will come from.  Frankly HSR is not something I expect to see, and I care nothing about it.

Mac

[schlimm]

PNWRMNM

The three of you, Henry 6, BT CPSO 266, and Schlimm, who think that inovation is sadly lacking in rail marketing and operation are free to write up a business plan, get financing, purchase the services you desire from the railroad, and sell the services they are too stupid or too conservative to offer to anyone who will buy them.  When you do that then you have standing to condemn, criticize, and complain about the failures of others.

Mac 

 

California, the FRA and possibly other states are already in the planning stages of doing exactly that.  I have a right to observe and draw conclusions, same as you.  I never said the rails were " too stupid or too conservative to offer to anyone."   It simply is becoming evident that for HSR and some freight questions, the innovation and technology seem to lie off-shore.

[Anonymous]

PNWRMNM

Bucyrus

PNWRMNM

henry6

What is now, Dave H., is only part of what lies ahead espeically if the FRA is successful in takeing more traffic off concrete and putting on steel. 

Henry,

The FRA will not take one ton of traffic "off concrete"  FRA is a regulatory agency.  It is a burden on the carriers and often a roadblock to progress.  If you want to find out more see 49 CFR for hundreds of pages of mind numbing fine print detail.  With only exceedingly rare exception the freight rail system supports the government, not the other way around.

Mac

Take a look at this FRA plan.  Is the FRA still just a regulatory agency, or has their role been recently enhanced?  In their plan, they seem to suggest that their role has been enhanced.  It certainly seems like a wide-ranging role when they include, for example,  “livable communities” in their overall objective.  Clearly, they say they want to take freight traffic off of trucks running on highways, and onto rail.

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf

Bucyrus,

This preliminary plan says nothing of state or federal investment in rail infrastructure.  If dances around the subject on page 24 where it states that stakeholders should develop an investment strategy, and on the top of page 25 it correctly states that rail customers pay the full infrastructure costs for rail, unlike highways for which they claim about 80% cost recovery.

FRA will be an advocacy agency if congress tells them to be and gives them the money.  That has yet to happen.  My statement is correct.

Mac 

Mac 

When I read the FRA Preliminary National Rail Plan, it sure sounds like the FRA is rolling up its sleeves, and about to get right down to business in making sweeping changes to the railroad industry.  They may only be an advocacy agency, as you say, and they do not have all the needed funding in place, but clearly, their national plan sounds like it is perfectly matched to the goals and aspirations of the present administration and of congress.  And the plan outlines so much change that it is dizzying to read. 

.

I understand your point that the money for these changes has not yet been allocated.  But the main point of this particular issue is whether the FRA will drag their feet and prevent the railroad industry from adopting new methods and technologies.  When I read the FRA national plan, it sounds like the last thing the FRA will do is thwart change.  Indeed, the plan works hard in order to not leave out anything that could possibly be changed.  The plan calls for nothing less than the reordering of society for the purpose of better transportation. 

.

At the bottom of page 1, it says this (blue emphasis is mine):   

.

“The traditional role of the FRA has long been to promote and oversee railroad safety, and safety remains a focus of FRA. Legislative directives in the last year, most notably PRIIA and the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), have given FRA additional broad responsibilities to administer and manage funds that will improve rail transportation. The new scope and direction provided by PRIIA and RSIA, in combination with the Recovery Act, has made FRA’s participatory role in rail transportation projects comparable to that of other modal administrations in the Department.”  

.

The FRA Preliminary National Rail Plan:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf

 

[henry6]

PNWRMNM

The three of you, Henry 6, BT CPSO 266, and Schlimm, who think that inovation is sadly lacking in rail marketing and operation are free to write up a business plan, get financing, purchase the services you desire from the railroad, and sell the services they are too stupid or too conservative to offer to anyone who will buy them.  When you do that then you have standing to condemn, criticize, and complain about the failures of others.

Mac 

Mac, I think your remarks are out of line in reference to the three of us.  First, this is a railfan, mostly non professional thread, it is a discussion board, there are ideas and opinions, things are hashed and rehashed.  If you want to pick on something pick on ideas and statements and not on people. 

That being said, my opinion and observation is that the American railroad supply sector has not had to keep up with the rest of the world in relation to high speed rail but rather has done (thier job, a good job) well in catering to the demands of what American railroads have needed and wanted based on the parameters of heavey guage railroading directed by history and regulartory rules.  Thus, since there has not been a real effort, need or call, for high speed rail in thie country outside the Acela and Metroliner projects, it is only natural that we have to go offshore to get the up to date technology.  Otherwise we would be starting at tie one, rail one, spike one and take years to catch up to the rest of the world.  I'm not saying the Chinese or Japanese or Europeans have the best or that we will or should use anyone of them.  But they have it and we don't.  It makes common sense to look at what they've got to offer and design around and from what they've done.

Note: Acela, all electric locomotives in service, and Talgo, for example, are all passenger products based on European designs and operations and are here on license. The U.S. dabbled in the Turbotrain and Metroliner 40 or so years ago, but went no further.

NOTE 2: I saw Mac's remarks and commented from a notification rather than while in the thread and thought it was in reference to a Chinese technology and HSR thread.  But a lot of what I've said above holds true outside the HSR debate, too.  And in a broader sense, there has always been a sharing of technologies and ideas from all over.  Some works here and not there and vice versa and some works equally well anyplace.  In other threads over time the fact that the US heavy guage has precluded the adoption or even adaptation of lighter guage foreign rail technology has been often mentoned.  As for your remarks, Mac, the fact remains that American technology is based on American railroad practices and needs.  And if there is a tried and true technology in Timbuctu that might be useful here, then the experts in Timbuctu should be relied on for expert guidence.  Reinventing the wheel can be a waste of time and very costly.

[PNWRMNM]

The three of you, Henry 6, BT CPSO 266, and Schlimm, who think that inovation is sadly lacking in rail marketing and operation are free to write up a business plan, get financing, purchase the services you desire from the railroad, and sell the services they are too stupid or too conservative to offer to anyone who will buy them.  When you do that then you have standing to condemn, criticize, and complain about the failures of others.

Mac 

[schlimm]

BT CPSO 266

think we can all agree that the system could do with a lot more innovation. We have cited out that the biggest problems converting more highway loads to rail are convenience, speed, flexibility, and cost.

 

 

See the China/GE passenger thread.  It is beginning to become sadly apparent that domestic innovation is lacking.

[BT CPSO 266]

I think now is the time to start trying out new rail intermodal options while they have the public's attention. Whether it is the new rail sprinters (which we brought a lot of good points and opinions to the table), new roadrailers (like brought up in a new thread), etc.

I think we can all agree that the system could do with a lot more innovation. We have cited out that the biggest problems converting more highway loads to rail are convenience, speed, flexibility, and cost.

Overall I think a plan needs to be made into how the railroads are going to adapt to these needs if the government is going to continue to help invest in their infrastructure; if they show new ideas like these, they may gain more funding support and change of some rules & regulations for these new ideas to become reality and encourage manufacturing & industrial development.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shift-in-intermodal-priorities-for-national-freight-policy-raises-concerns-for-trucking-reports-the-journal-of-commerce-89927952.html

[PNWRMNM]

Bucyrus

PNWRMNM

henry6

What is now, Dave H., is only part of what lies ahead espeically if the FRA is successful in takeing more traffic off concrete and putting on steel. 

Henry,

The FRA will not take one ton of traffic "off concrete"  FRA is a regulatory agency.  It is a burden on the carriers and often a roadblock to progress.  If you want to find out more see 49 CFR for hundreds of pages of mind numbing fine print detail.  With only exceedingly rare exception the freight rail system supports the government, not the other way around.

Mac

Take a look at this FRA plan.  Is the FRA still just a regulatory agency, or has their role been recently enhanced?  In their plan, they seem to suggest that their role has been enhanced.  It certainly seems like a wide-ranging role when they include, for example,  “livable communities” in their overall objective.  Clearly, they say they want to take freight traffic off of trucks running on highways, and onto rail.

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf

Bucyrus,

This preliminary plan says nothing of state or federal investment in rail infrastructure.  If dances around the subject on page 24 where it states that stakeholders should develop an investment strategy, and on the top of page 25 it correctly states that rail customers pay the full infrastructure costs for rail, unlike highways for which they claim about 80% cost recovery.

FRA will be an advocacy agency if congress tells them to be and gives them the money.  That has yet to happen.  My statement is correct.

Mac 

[Anonymous]

PNWRMNM

henry6

What is now, Dave H., is only part of what lies ahead espeically if the FRA is successful in takeing more traffic off concrete and putting on steel. 

Henry,

The FRA will not take one ton of traffic "off concrete"  FRA is a regulatory agency.  It is a burden on the carriers and often a roadblock to progress.  If you want to find out more see 49 CFR for hundreds of pages of mind numbing fine print detail.  With only exceedingly rare exception the freight rail system supports the government, not the other way around.

Mac

Take a look at this FRA plan.  Is the FRA still just a regulatory agency, or has their role been recently enhanced?  In their plan, they seem to suggest that their role has been enhanced.  It certainly seems like a wide-ranging role when they include, for example,  “livable communities” in their overall objective.  Clearly, they say they want to take freight traffic off of trucks running on highways, and onto rail.

 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf

[henry6]

Technically you are right, Mac. But in the general gist of the conversation and wording above, the statement is correct.

[PNWRMNM]

henry6

What is now, Dave H., is only part of what lies ahead espeically if the FRA is successful in takeing more traffic off concrete and putting on steel. 

Henry,

The FRA will not take one ton of traffic "off concrete"  FRA is a regulatory agency.  It is a burden on the carriers and often a roadblock to progress.  If you want to find out more see 49 CFR for hundreds of pages of mind numbing fine print detail.  With only exceedingly rare exception the freight rail system supports the government, not the other way around.

Mac

[henry6]

What is now, Dave H., is only part of what lies ahead espeically if the FRA is successful in takeing more traffic off concrete and putting on steel.  It will almost be revoloutionary in the amount and variety of traffic which the status quo is not capable of handling at this time because of operating philosophies on the parts of both labor and management (and political overseers), the lack of capacities of the physical plant, and the absence of enough or the right equipment.  Yes, there is intermodal, through trains now, but there is a lot more of them and other traffic on the way.

[dehusman]

henry6

Perhaps it would be the marketing value.  But you've got to admit the yard times and connecting logistics are time consuming. So if you had a dedicated unitized and product or specific customer designed trainset which could zip along at passenger train speeds (or at least better than heavy freight train speeds) and bypassing yards and with reduced crews, then, yes, this might be a way to handle (and entice) new and additional traffic off the highway.

We have that now.  Its called "intermodal" or TOFC.  It is unitized (the trains consist of entirely trailer or container traffic) on specialized trainsets (double stack or spine cars) which zip along at near passenger train speeds (TOFC trains can operate at 70 mph, passenger most places off the NEC, 79 mph) and they bypass yards (you don't hump a stack or pig train) with reduced crews (2 persons handle several hundred boxes for hundreds of miles).

Its there now. 

[henry6]

Bucyrus

So, can these two different types of trains (RFR and HFR) operate on a common infrastructure?  Maybe, but perhaps different tracks on same right of way...the safety conecpt is that niether the twain should meet in neither cornfield nor rear end fashion.

 

And, more importantly, is it really a valid argument that a lighter, faster type of train is needed to handle the lighter, more valuable items; or is this just a myth being perpetuated by people who want to reinvent the wheel, so to speak?   Could be why a lot of merchandise is not on rail now.  It might not be a reinvention of the wheel but taking reality into one's grip and making money on it.   

 

In other words, can the present heavy freight rail operations, if they were simply expanded, handle the additional traffic diverted off of the highways?  Or, do we really need a specialized train for that additional traffic?  Perhaps it would be the marketing value.  But you've got to admit the yard times and connecting logistics are time consuming. So if you had a dedicated unitized and product or specific customer designed trainset which could zip along at passenger train speeds (or at least better than heavy freight train speeds) and bypassing yards and with reduced crews, then, yes, this might be a way to handle (and entice) new and additional traffic off the highway.

 

The FRA wants to shift the majority of long-haul truck freight off of the highways, and onto rail. So, according to the FRA, what must railroading do in order to accommodate the higher-class, higher value, more time-sensitive merchandise that will be shifted from highway to rail, according to the new policy of the FRA? See above for starters.  I would imagine that as certain traffic increases so would the cost per unit. But there must be clear tracks with no stuffed sidings or plugged yards all the time, enough crews and equipment to handle the traffic, too.  Railroad management and labor will have to sharpen both their pencils and their wits in a single realization that this is their future being handed to them, so they better work it out right and right now. 

[Anonymous]

So, can these two different types of trains (RFR and HFR) operate on a common infrastructure? 

 

And, more importantly, is it really a valid argument that a lighter, faster type of train is needed to handle the lighter, more valuable items; or is this just a myth being perpetuated by people who want to reinvent the wheel, so to speak? 

 

In other words, can the present heavy freight rail operations, if they were simply expanded, handle the additional traffic diverted off of the highways?  Or, do we really need a specialized train for that additional traffic?

 

The FRA wants to shift the majority of long-haul truck freight off of the highways, and onto rail. So, according to the FRA, what must railroading do in order to accommodate the higher-class, higher value, more time-sensitive merchandise that will be shifted from highway to rail, according to the new policy of the FRA? 

[carnej1]

Bucyrus

Well, here is your answer as to the proper market for this new system.  The advocacy behind this new push for rail to solve all environmental and energy problems wants to divide rail service into two tiers.  One tier would address the bulk materials hauling as usual, and the other would address the need to take on more urgent, time-sensitive hauling, which mostly moves by truck. 

 

This will divide freight rail service into two distinct classes of trains, known as Heavy Freight Rail (HFR), and Rapid Freight Rail (RFR).  RFR is designed to operate with lower weight capacity rolling stock loaded to 25 tons per axle versus 33 tons per axle for heavy freight railroads.  RFR moves at speeds up to 100 mph or more.  So you would have two entirely different forms of trains operating on a joint system.

 

The so-called Rapid Freight Rail is indeed the very type of concept that the Sprinter is targeted for, except that I would not want to be running the Sprinter at 100 mph.  So, the perfect embodiment of this new RFR train has not yet been fully developed.   But, at this moment, Rapid Freight Rail does not exist, so the Sprinter finds no application. 

 

Clearly RFR calls for an entirely new train made of lighter-weight / higher-strength materials, coupled with better power distribution, and more sophisticated braking systems. It brings sports car engineering to freight trains. 

 

If this dual mode vision comes to fruition, there will be the need to completely design from scratch, the lighter weight train for the Rapid Freight Rail application.  This is where contemporary railroading will take a radical departure in order to seek this new light and fast identity. 

 

Here is a blog piece that explores the details of RFR / HFR operating together as separate entities.   

 

http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/2009/09/sunday-train-21st-century-steel.html

 

 A consortium in the UK is promoting something along the same lines as RFR: www.rfg.org.uk/files/JohnEllis.pps

The "TruckTrain" vehicle they are designeing is quite similar to the Cargosprinter, they also have designed a variant called "TracTruc" which is a modular power unit designed to pull trains of Roadrailer type equipment:

 

www.bestufs.net/download/NewsEvents/articles/What_Future_If_Any.pdfwww.bestufs.net/download/NewsEvents/articles/What_Future_If_Any.pdf

 

 

[carnej1]

schlimm

Carnej;  I don't doubt that you've read about the Cargo Sprinter's lack of success somewhere, but I've yet to find anything.  DBR.  Are you referring to the old DB Railion, now called DB Schenker Rail?

I found this:

CargoSprinter

In late 1996, the German Railways (Deutsche Bahn or DB) announced a demonstration version of what amounts to diesel multiple unit trains for containers.

(Note: The DB pages linked to in the preceding paragraph contain information on DB's freight operations in German only. The site does not currently contain specific information about the project described in this section.)

This concept, called the CargoSprinter, consisted of multiple platforms, the end ones of each group are powered by a small diesel motor but which also can carry up to two 20 ft containers. The intermediate platforms are unpowered. The end platforms have a control cab, in addition to the cargo space.

For a photo of a CargoSprinter, click here.

Several of these trains could be linked together and run in MU configuration with a single operator.

These trains were designed to provide rapid service by rail between smaller container terminals and to provide competition for highway trucks.

This equipment was described and illustrated in the January, 1997, issue of Railway Age (p. 76).

This concept ultimately proved unsuccessful, not for technical but for economic reasons. Because it was produced in small numbers, the specialized equipment was expensive to maintain as all the container flats in the train had to have multiple-unit (MU) control cables. At the same time, because of capacity limitations of the fixed consist, the equipment could only be used on a few routes.

The DB decided to abandon use of this equipment in 2004. But, it was concerned that it might be used by a competing rail entity, so most of the remaining CargoSprinter equipment was sold to the Austrian Federal Railways for use in maintenance of way activities. The self-propelled trains will carry a range of maintenance of way equipment in a modular configuration that can be lifted on and off the former container flats.

Heres the originalource:

http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/intermod.htm

 

[Anonymous]

Well, here is your answer as to the proper market for this new system.  The advocacy behind this new push for rail to solve all environmental and energy problems wants to divide rail service into two tiers.  One tier would address the bulk materials hauling as usual, and the other would address the need to take on more urgent, time-sensitive hauling, which mostly moves by truck. 

 

This will divide freight rail service into two distinct classes of trains, known as Heavy Freight Rail (HFR), and Rapid Freight Rail (RFR).  RFR is designed to operate with lower weight capacity rolling stock loaded to 25 tons per axle versus 33 tons per axle for heavy freight railroads.  RFR moves at speeds up to 100 mph or more.  So you would have two entirely different forms of trains operating on a joint system.

 

The so-called Rapid Freight Rail is indeed the very type of concept that the Sprinter is targeted for, except that I would not want to be running the Sprinter at 100 mph.  So, the perfect embodiment of this new RFR train has not yet been fully developed.   But, at this moment, Rapid Freight Rail does not exist, so the Sprinter finds no application. 

 

Clearly RFR calls for an entirely new train made of lighter-weight / higher-strength materials, coupled with better power distribution, and more sophisticated braking systems. It brings sports car engineering to freight trains. 

 

If this dual mode vision comes to fruition, there will be the need to completely design from scratch, the lighter weight train for the Rapid Freight Rail application.  This is where contemporary railroading will take a radical departure in order to seek this new light and fast identity. 

 

Here is a blog piece that explores the details of RFR / HFR operating together as separate entities.   

 

http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/2009/09/sunday-train-21st-century-steel.html

 

[BT CPSO 266]

 

We should be looking at this as what actually needs to change on the current system? Laws, regulations, maybe pass some laws that would take freight from the highway and put it on the rails, basically the opposite of what was done in the past, as mentioned earlier by others. 

I think the whole industry should sit down and really think about this. Really analyze it; look at what could make this work. Such as making loading/unloading easier; I heard us rollers like FedEx uses in their semi's and planes, great idea! Maybe a felxi-van option on these sprinters, the table turns and slides the container onto the dock, ground, trailer, etc. Think, innovate, change, that is what it is going to take for real changes to be made in transportation.

 

[henry6]

Note on the term "loss leader".  It is usually an item in a retail store to draw customers in hopes they will buy other items on the shelves at normally marked up prices.  Thus, Thanksgiving turkey free or at a very low per pound price will lure enough shoppers in to buy the rest of the dinner.  Therefore, LCL is not a service that could be considered a loss leader: either you used LCL or not; or just because you used LCL did not mean you'd use full carload orunit train services.  HOWEVER, passenger service, by some railroads was a "public relations/advertising" tool which could be construed as loss leader: if a passenger was impressed on how he was treated aboard the Super Limited, he just might move his factory to a siding on the railroad.  But, no, Loss Leader does not appy to LCL.

[schlimm]

An educated gentleman does not suggest others are "making stuff up" just because of an honest difference of opinion.  You are entitled to your opinion and I (and plenty of people far more expert in the field than I am, and probably you) don't happen to agree.  The fact that you have to resort to accusations of dishonesty with people who don't agree with you suggests you are a very defensive person.  "Me thinketh thou doth protest too much."

[greyhounds]

schlimm

greyhounds

As to my use of the word "Nonsense", I have to call 'em like I see 'em.  Talking about cross-subsidaztion withn a single point to point movement, with one bill presented to the shipper, is flat out nothing but "Nonsense".

 

Perhaps you would recognize the concept "loss leader?"  I believe that is what the ICC came down on the rails for.  Abandoned means they left the business.  They were still trying in the 1950's (witness dedicated equipment on the NYC, SP and others) but even without interstates, highway and truck improvements following the war took the lion's share away from the rails.

Well, you can believe what you want.  But you really shoudn't just make stuff up to support your belief and post it here.  Which is basically what you're doing.

The LCL oriented intermodal container system developed by the NYC in the 20's and adopted by other railroads dropped the railroads' cost of moving LCL from $9.49/ton in a boxcar to $2.40/ton in the container system.  The regulators blocked the use of this system by refusing to allow the railroads to pass the savings through to customers.  The regulators essentially locked the railroads into a high cost, inefficient method of handling LCL which had great difficulty competing with motor freight.

They then required the railroads to opperate in this inefficient manner by requiring them to handle this freight under the common carrier obligation.  The ICC went so far as to order some railroads, such as the PRR, to handle the business at a loss.

As to the NYC and SP continuing to handle LCL into the 1950's and continuing to loose it to trucks, yes.  They had no choice in either case.  They had to handle it under the common carrier obligation and they couldn't effectively compete because the government blocked the intermodal container system.   (along with other inovations which would have kept rail LCL competitive and profitable) All the railroads could do was minimize their losses in the inefficient manner they were require to operate by the regulators..   

Now these are proven, documented facts.  They've been researched.  You may choose to not accept these facts as part of you blind faith in government economic regulation.  But you really shouldn't follow that blind faith so far as to make stuff up, such as the "Loss Leader" fabrication, and post it here.  Which again, is just what you are doing.

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

Carnej;  I don't doubt that you've read about the Cargo Sprinter's lack of success somewhere, but I've yet to find anything.  DBR.  Are you referring to the old DB Railion, now called DB Schenker Rail?

Apparently, the Wikipedia site has it that CRT--originally called Colin Rees Transport back in the 1950's went into the cargosprinter thing in the late 1990's as more of a means of supporting the plastics industry. The CRT as a company got bought by QueenslandRail and is now operated by QR's subsidiary Interrail. 

The interesting thing I've noticed is that even if you go directly to the CRT Group's own site their is nothing mentioned about the CargoSprinter idea--there is more on their 30' containers and Pod trailer.

Then DBSchenker own site seems to not have anything mentioning CargoSprint tech. They seem to have gotten into something more akin to a varient of the Unit train---they just call it Block Train. Smaller cars but still---

mmmm---chin stroking time-----mmmm

[schlimm]

Carnej;  I don't doubt that you've read about the Cargo Sprinter's lack of success somewhere, but I've yet to find anything.  DBR.  Are you referring to the old DB Railion, now called DB Schenker Rail?

[carnej1]

schlimm

henry6

The Germans may have assumed too much in one direction or another, really didn't have a candidate--or a good candidate--or railroad situation for the technology.  And that doesn't matter if we find we do have a business candidate or railroad here for which this technology might be considered.  

 

Along those lines, we are assuming the Cargo Sprinter failed in Germany and elsewhere.  Perhaps it did, perhaps not.  As in the case of FRA regs, what is our source for that?  It seems it is because someone said so without any information as to what was tried and why it failed.

My comment on coal was based on the idea that coal is a low-cost commodity that is used in huge amounts and shipped as a trainload, mine/sorter/loader to utility.  The Cargo Sprinter seems designed for smaller, container-sized shipments.

It did fail.... I'm at work and don't have the time to post links but there is documentation online on why DBR(Germany) and CRT (Australia) weren't able to make the service work economically. I will try to post links later......you could also research this yourself via Google rather than stating "We Don't Know, what are the sources"...I'm not assuming anything, nor am I offering my personal opinion (which is that as a railfan I think it's a cool idea although the R.R industry doesn't seem to share my enthusiasm)

[schlimm]

henry6

The Germans may have assumed too much in one direction or another, really didn't have a candidate--or a good candidate--or railroad situation for the technology.  And that doesn't matter if we find we do have a business candidate or railroad here for which this technology might be considered.  

 

Along those lines, we are assuming the Cargo Sprinter failed in Germany and elsewhere.  Perhaps it did, perhaps not.  As in the case of FRA regs, what is our source for that?  It seems it is because someone said so without any information as to what was tried and why it failed.

My comment on coal was based on the idea that coal is a low-cost commodity that is used in huge amounts and shipped as a trainload, mine/sorter/loader to utility.  The Cargo Sprinter seems designed for smaller, container-sized shipments.

[henry6]

blownout cylinder

henry6

We don't know that.  It is not a problem until the FRA says no.  In effect, Zug, you have created the road block/problem by assuming something that is not yet in play.  And even if the FRA says no, there might be ways around the block or simple adjustments.  Don't know till we get there. 

I have fun with this one. There is a neighbour down the road from us who has been trying to get a variation to build an addition onto his house. An In-Law suite if you will. According to this he should be able to build it THEN find out if it is allowed.

Unfortunately we have to go by what the law states in this case---

Find out if the thing will be allowed THEN build it

My point here, and with others, was that posters assumed the existance of the roadblock or no answer without investigating or figuring ways around the roadblock. Some immeidately assumed that the unions would say no, that the FRA would say no, that truck is cheaper, that class one's would say no, that it doesn't fit today's railroading patterns, that since the RDG went out of business despite the Bee Line service it can't work, that coal weighs too much, that need to lift on and off costs too much, etc.  Now, finally, posters are thinking through and around the possible roadblocks and what might be able to be done to make it work in certain situations.

Also, my comment that I don't care about what the Germans did or didn't do is because we hadn't considered what we could or couldn't do.  The Germans may have assumed too much in one direction or another, really didn't have a candidate--or a good candidate--or railroad situation for the technology.  And that doesn't matter if we find we do have a business candidate or railroad here for which this technology might be considered.  

[blownout cylinder]

henry6

We don't know that.  It is not a problem until the FRA says no.  In effect, Zug, you have created the road block/problem by assuming something that is not yet in play.  And even if the FRA says no, there might be ways around the block or simple adjustments.  Don't know till we get there. 

I have fun with this one. There is a neighbour down the road from us who has been trying to get a variation to build an addition onto his house. An In-Law suite if you will. According to this he should be able to build it THEN find out if it is allowed.

Unfortunately we have to go by what the law states in this case---

Find out if the thing will be allowed THEN build it

[zugmann]

BNSFwatcher

No reflection "BT CPSO 266", but I think this thread has become a case for mandatory "Spel-Chek" (sp?) enabling.  Also, all posters should be required to own an English dictionary.  Some should be required to enroll in "Remedial English".  It is getting scary!  Notice, Norris:  no names mentioned!

Hays

 

 

And some "people" should really "stop" using 50,000 "quotation marks" in every "single" post.  It does get "annoying". 

 

PS.  "no" names. 

[Murphy Siding]

BNSFwatcher

No reflection "BT CPSO 266", but I think this thread has become a case for mandatory "Spel-Chek" (sp?) enabling.  Also, all posters should be required to own an English dictionary.  Some should be required to enroll in "Remedial English".  It is getting scary!  Notice, Norris:  no names mentioned!

Hays

     Thanks for not naming anybody by name,  I guess.  Now please move on past your obcession with spelling and grammar.  Our common bond on this forum is our interest in railroading.  It is not in our interest of *perfect* spelling and grammar.  There is no requirement for *perfect* spelling and grammar to join and participate in the forum.  We come from a variety of backgrounds and skill sets.  No one is perfect, and no one should be expected to be so. 

     Like everyone else on the forum, my  spelling and grammar lags from time to time.  If my writing capabilities, or those of any other poster bother you, please do me a favor, and skip over the thread in question.  The repeated attempts to be our very own grammar and spelling policeman are getting tiring.  I have no clue, if my computer has spell check.  What you see written, is done to the extent of my capabilities, nothing more.  I'd hope that we could accept each other on this forum with that in mind.

-Norris  user/moderator/ average speller.

[BNSFwatcher]

No reflection "BT CPSO 266", but I think this thread has become a case for mandatory "Spel-Chek" (sp?) enabling.  Also, all posters should be required to own an English dictionary.  Some should be required to enroll in "Remedial English".  It is getting scary!  Notice, Norris:  no names mentioned!

Hays

[schlimm]

henry6

Bucyrus and I see eye to eye on how to think through this possible tool....

 

I'm not sure about this exact tool, but the concept should be explored by those who not only have technical expertise, but also outside-the-the box, visionary thinking in marketing and distribution.

[henry6]

OMG, to pick up a phrase, even Bucyrus and I see eye to eye on how to think through this possible tool....

[Anonymous]

I understand the observation that this is a concept in search of a market.  In watching the video, it does not seem to really define the market.  Instead, it focuses on the concept itself with its high fuel economy, single operator, sophisticated couplers, advanced braking, etc. 

 

I don’t see a market for this new technology to be blended into conventional freight rail operations.  Not only would it pose many operational complications, but also I simply cannot see the advantage over heavy rail operating in the same area.      

 

We have had some previous threads discussing electrification of U.S. railroads as a component of a larger concept of a U.S. National Transportation System outlined by the FRA in their recent mission statement.  For freight transportation, the FRA proposal calls for diverting most of long haul trucking to rail, and electrifying rail.

 

The most unresolved part of the proposal is the question of how freight will be handled between the rail terminal and the customer’s dock.  Trucking gives the needed flexibility in the terminal-to-dock haulage.  However, shifting most of long haul trucking onto rail will require rail to be as fast as trucking dock-to-dock.  This need for speed will not be met simply by shifting truck freight onto trains.  It will also require the terminal-to-dock handling to be speeded up.  How will this be accomplished?

 

Can this be accomplished by speeding up the trucking that currently serves this pickup and delivery function, or can this function be speeded up more effectively with rail?  Considering that the FRA objective in getting truck freight off the highways and onto rail is fuel economy, that same objective would apply to the pickup and delivery function now being served by truck.  So improved fuel economy would be one argument of serving this pickup and delivery need by rail.  

 

If rail is the solution, I do not think it will be simply an extension of conventional heavy rail operations right to every dock.  Instead, the rail terminal-to-dock segment will be a radically different form of rail operation, compared to conventional freight rail.  It might be something along the lines of the Sprinter concept in the video, but I don’t think that that concept is anywhere close to being the ultimate tool for the pickup and delivery component of the haul. 

 

In any case, because the pickup and delivery rail system would not be integrated with conventional rail operations, the pickup and delivery system would be free to make many design departures from conventional rail practice, including the use of remote control, and even a different gage if necessary.

 

Not only would this new pickup and delivery rail system be a completely new and unique mechanical plant, it would also likely spawn related changes to how containers are handled at the rail terminal.  I don’t have the details worked out, but I see this whole rail pickup and delivery system as a kind of automated Futurama vision.  It would be way outside the box so to speak. 

 

So that is the market that I see, if there is any market at all. I do not think that the Sprinter exactly is the right concept to serve that market.  It might serve some specific need in that market.  But, if anything, the Sprinter concept represents to me just the spirit of thinking that will have to be applied to this all-new rail pickup and delivery service.  In that sense, there may be a relationship with the Sprinter.

 

Some may think that such new pickup and delivery by rail is too radical to happen, but we are living in a time of big changes.  Electrifying the railroads, building a new energy grid, shoehorning new HSR and LRT into freight corridors, and getting most of long haul trucking off the highways and onto rail—these are all big changes.

 

~And, because this new rail pickup and delivery system will be such a radical departure from conventional freight rail, and because it replaces trucking, one might wonder who will end up running it.     

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

Perhaps you would recognize the concept "loss leader?"  I believe that is what the ICC came down on the rails for.  Abandoned means they left the business. 

I also believe that the ICC did take a near "paranoid" reaction to the phenomena as it was occuring.

For an example, we had, to the north of us, in Palmerston ON a major divisional point that by the 1950's was getting into moribund territory. One reason that keeps getting lost in the rush to jump on the RR was the simple moving by industry itself from rural communities to larger urban centers in order to capitalize on that market. In fact, places like Mitchell, Listowel, Monkton, Paisley, Chesley, Hanover, Southampton etc etc-- had furniture companies thriving there--. Only to have had an entire furniture industry either up and close up or move to Toronto. Same as a fair number of other industries----

Kind of hard to keep a viable RR going with that going on----

[schlimm]

greyhounds

As to my use of the word "Nonsense", I have to call 'em like I see 'em.  Talking about cross-subsidaztion withn a single point to point movement, with one bill presented to the shipper, is flat out nothing but "Nonsense".

 

Perhaps you would recognize the concept "loss leader?"  I believe that is what the ICC came down on the rails for.  Abandoned means they left the business.  They were still trying in the 1950's (witness dedicated equipment on the NYC, SP and others) but even without interstates, highway and truck improvements following the war took the lion's share away from the rails.

[greyhounds]

schlimm

greyhounds:  If Evanston were closer I might read the/your thesis.  However, your sneering tone is hardly that of an academic.  We don't refer to contrasting viewpoints as "nonsense."  Lighten up.

No, and I never claimed to be "An Academic".

You made a false statement that the railroads had "Abandoned" the LCL business.  I know that they tried very hard to remain competitive in that important market segment.  Their inovations and changes were blocked by Federal economic regulators.  These regulators essentially forced the railroads out of the LCL market.  You were essentially blaming the victim.

As to my use of the word "Nonsense", I have to call 'em like I see 'em.  Talking about cross-subsidaztion withn a single point to point movement, with one bill presented to the shipper, is flat out nothing but "Nonsense".

[narig01]

 A few years back I had started a thread titled "Light Rail Freight"
The thing I wanted to point out was there is a lot of short to medium haul freight that  goes by truck that could be handled more efficiently by rail.

The best case I can think of is this:
In Tennessee a large retail chain has a distribution center(DC) appox 70 miles east of Memphis.  They get a lot of containers (over 100 a day) both domestic & imports and it all get delivered by truck.
      In addition there are other DC’s in the 100-200 mile radius of Memphis that receive similar volumes.
    Rgds IGN

[narig01]

  My turn to throw rocks.   Re Cargo Sprinters

The first thing I saw when looking at this was that big old crane to lift containers. Anyone know how much it costs?  (Del Monte at some of there terminals use what is essentially an oversized fork lift to move containers. As do railroads) .

Next 6 or 8 platforms?  Not much revenue potential.

 If you want to use something like this for short haul, I think John Kneiling was correct use rollers & latches to move containers not an expensive crane(like the airlines due for their containers).

 Next can you add or subtract cars easily? 

600 hp engine what about trying to climb a small grade?

Rgds IGN

[carnej1]

henry6

I am glad to see that the possible merits of Cargo Sprinter are finally being discussed instead of trying to diss the catylist!  It's not that I favor or not favor the concept, its that there is now thoughtful insight instead of knee jerk dismissal.   ust stay away from arguing about the end of LCL here...it belongs in a thread of its own...for this argument just know it was but is no longer.  Keep going...

I find CargoSprinter very interesting and have read everything I can find online about it but I do find some of your comments about it rather odd. Specifically your statement that you don't "care what the Germans have done". CargoSprinter is a system that was designed and built in Germany by a German company specifically for the German/European rail network. The idea was to be able to run very short, fast trains of containers on a rail system that is primarily designed and operated for the transportation of passengers. The idea was to reduce intercity truck trips and that is the type of service the Cargosprinter was trialed in, unsuccesfully I may add. It is designed for relatively short distance services. The question 'are there other applications for it?" should really be "are there other applications where Carosprinter would offer a major advantage over established technology?".

 The intermodal freight rail network in North America based around doublestack trains is designed to transport enormous numbers of containers long distances. The industry is pretty good at doing this economically and this is borne out by the marketshare they have taken from long distance OTR trucking. One could think of Cargosprinter as a way to grow shorter distance,lower volume intermodal business but then it would be competing with technologies that are already more established and proven, specifically  the Roadrailer/Railrunner/Railking type equipment......

BTW, way back in the 70's Brookville Locomotive (now a builder of Genset Units) built a prototype of a self- propelled piggyback car called a "Trailer Tramp" that was very similar to the Cargosprinter and tried to find buyers well into the deregulation era, with no luck....

[jeffhergert]

Some have posted about this being useful for an all-rail, dock to dock, move.  Probably because it mentions unused spurs at factories.  This thing, as it's shown isn't going to work like that.  Unless they start making containers with side doors, all those shown have to be loaded thru one end.  That means at the shipper, and receiver, it's going to need to be removed from the flat car, onto a chassis and backed into a loading/unloading bay.  In effect for an all rail move, every shipper/receiver is going to need to have their own lift equipment.  (They said that the Sprinter can be loaded from either side.  I didn't think that was a problem.  They make it sound like they've solved a problem that has kept intermodal from catching on.) 

I also think the idea of the Widget Works loading 5 or 6 containers for the same destination is also a simplistic way of looking at the way most freight moves.  While sure, there are factories that probably do generate a train load (even a small 6 car train) of traffic for one destination, I'd bet most generate a smaller number with more diverse destinations.  If they can generate enough loads in one day to fill the Sprinter, I doubt that the loads are all going to the same city.  Even if they do, it's not assured that all loads going to the same place will be ready in a 1,2.3 manner.  One load may be released in the AM, the second around noon, the the next in the PM etc.  So do you tie up a couple of these things waiting until all the loads are ready?  The truckers could be half way towards the destination with the first few loads by then. 

Before hiring out on the UP, I worked for IBP at their Perry, IA plant for 3 years.  It was a smaller plant where I did inventory, but also helped load and bill out trucks.  (I also had to move 1200 lbs of meat in 5 lbs loose boxes one night after everyone else went home to make one guy legal.)  We probably loaded around 10 +/- trucks per shift, this being a two shift facility.  Most of the loads didn't go to the same place.  Of those that did, it wasn't assured that the loads for the same destination were loaded and ready at the same time.   

So really, this thing is going to consolidate local traffic at one IM yard for delivery to another IM yard for local distribution.  Something that could already be done with conventional equipment.  The RoadRailer system would probably be better for this, but it hasn't worked out over the general system either. 

No matter what equipment you use, your still going to eat up capacity fast with 300 foot trains, if you want them to all run at track speed.  That's about 6 trucks every 4 or 5 miles.  If you wait to build a train large enough (It said up to 7 units, that's still short by our standards.  I wonder if they used that for a European audience?  Maybe it could even be longer here.) you may as well use convenional equipment.  Plus, the whole idea is to get the freight moving now, not 3 or 4 hours later when you have a capacity efficient length.   (Yes, maybe it could be used on tracks that currently don't have much other rail traffic.  Problem is, there most likely isn't much truckload sized freight either.  One thing that amazes me is going by small towns that to used have regular, but maybe not a large volume of business.  A lot of it is gone, not lost to trucks, just gone.  Either outmoded or moved away.  Even some small cities have lost a lot of industrial plants.)

One last thing.  We always hear that the railroad never wants to try anything new, the "this is the way we've always done it" mentality.   If it doesn't fit in/on (take your pick) box car, flat car, unit train, etc. we don't want to try it.  What about the customers?  I'd bet that there is a lot of that same mentality (always done it this way) on their part too.  I'm sure there are quite a few who've never delt with a railroad in any way before.  They equate the railroad being steam engines and box cars, something just a bit more modern than the stone age, suitable only for hauling stone in bulk and not much else.  (Sure I know in this day and age things have and are changing.  Still, I bet there's a lot of customers out there thinking, this intermodal may work well for others, but it won't work for me under any circumstances. I'd better just keep my freight on the highway.)         

Jeff

[schlimm]

greyhounds:  If Evanston were closer I might read the/your thesis.  However, your sneering tone is hardly that of an academic.  We don't refer to contrasting viewpoints as "nonsense."  Lighten up.

[henry6]

I am glad to see that the possible merits of Cargo Sprinter are finally being discussed instead of trying to diss the catylist!  It's not that I favor or not favor the concept, its that there is now thoughtful insight instead of knee jerk dismissal.   ust stay away from arguing about the end of LCL here...it belongs in a thread of its own...for this argument just know it was but is no longer.  Keep going...

[blownout cylinder]

I'm wondering about something else as well. The concentration of industries into larger and larger urban centers may also have affected LCL--at least north of here it did.

I could see a shortline handling LCL in regional centers without having to build what comes out as smaller versions of intermodal depots in every town.

Can someone tell me just how many more lines would have to be built for this thing to work? If the stated goal is to get rid of all the truck traffic---then----?

The idea could be made to work in some ways-----

 

[wabash1]

Ok henry you want answers then here is yur answers., This will not fit into a class 1 railroad right away, If ever, you dont have the class 1 mentallity.( and that is not a insult its a compliment )  so maybe ill haft to shed light on it for you. Ok this thing is no more than a motorized flat car not a truck the only thing truck about it is over in germany they put a truck cab on it. Herzog has something very similar to that right now we talked about it a few months ago. in that it was picking up ties on my division here. but with making a few changes to this system a idea could work. for example instead of making it a train of its own cars adapt the ( i will call it a truck to only keep it clear of which power plant i am talking about) truck to work with existing cofc cars now. and use it on short line or spur tracks, now big advantage

1) If this is going to start at any town the cost will eat up any profit for several years. you haft to have a facility to bring the containers to,  pave it , put up a crane ( these things dont jump off the chasse up on to the car, the power equipment and the people to hire to make this happen. then if this is on a spur line you haft to off load this stuff onto a regualr car for a class 1 to haul. My way around this is use regular cofc and modify the truck to work with this. that takes care of some start up cost, to be cost effective you want light weight and simple and fuel effient trucks. that takes us to step 2

2) saftey. ( OH NO NOT AGAIN) I keep hearing that some say the unions wont let this happen and one even said that the engineers and truckers are 1 teamsters.  WRONG  We are the BLET. seperate from the teamsters They are the governing body but we are still the BLET. Now with that rant done, The Carrier would never let this happen not the unions. why is because of the FELA if the carrier would not be liable they would sit you on a number 2 wash bucket in the open and tell you to run it., That is why a gp 38 or maybe a gp 15 mp15 sw1500 would work fine for this application.  If you did the truck deal it would be manditory to slow to 15 mph or stop at all rail/highway  crossing to keep the operator from being killed at the crossings.

3) short line running would work and be profitable maybe even do away with trucks to some degree, going from town to town Say you take a line out of nashville tennessee a spur type running south ( I know there isnt this is hypatitical)  to do away with some rush hour traffic and pollution  make a few of these trains up say 1 carry the mail stopping in the towns heading south say another would be carring auto parts for the saturn plant, this would be work if the class 1 would give up some profits to allow this ( basing on them not owning the line) The big thing is you haft to make it universal. it cost to much to put cranes and unloading facilities every where.

The only way i see this type of system work is its own net work its own rails and its own terminals, i would not run these because its to dangerous, back to saftey no protection in the cab. it dont matter if there is only 1 crew member in the cab,There is so many people on here that think we wont do something because it get more people working with 1 man in the cab its safer with 2 but why give jobs up we have few jobs now dont give up any more. but you guys math dont add up. you say 1 man crews and smaller trains up to 10 how is that putting more men to work, they fill from the board but 10 jobs of 2 is 20 men now they haft to hire. I see a market that this would excel in here in the states. hauling nucular waste.

[PNWRMNM]

BT CPSO 266

Now I see these sprinters able to create options. I mean right now the option is to use a boxcar, flatcar, whatever, that has to continually go through several mail sorting processes and tend to move at slow speed, along with traveling with other customers' cars. The other option is intermodal; where if you are not close to a major terminal near a city, drayage kills you. This sprinter option allows to to load one of these up and it goes strait toward your receiver, at relatively fast speeds. Like I said earlier, if they are next to the rails, build small and I mean small intermodal yards that can serve several business near smaller cities.

What you are really trying to address is the aggregtion problem.  RWM did an excellent treatment of this many months ago and I would encourage you to find it.  This will be more broad brush.

Minimizing total rail costs means minimizing rail line haul costs.  In the carload context this is done by gathering cars from some geographic area at a yard and making a train headed in the general direction that the cars want to go.  There may be several intermediate yards at which cars for similar destinations are aggregated and cars for other destinations are separated and aggregated separately.  The cars, whcih may well be from multiple origin are finally spotted from the last yard to the customer.  I am the first to acknowledge that yards are not cheap, but the fact that they exists means that they are cheaper on a system basis than the alternative.

In the current intermodal system the truck replaces the switch engine and containers are loaded for other large intermodal yards.  Ideally a train carries containers for only one distination, but block swapping may be done at some intermediate point.  At Chicago, the city streets are used to sort containers.

Imagine a direct delivery system.  To keep it simple imagine two yards 400 miles apart.  The railroad runs two trains of 100 cars each way.  Assume trains depart from each end on 12 hour intervals.  To simplify a bit more assume that trains can cover the distance in 16 hours, start at the same time and meet in the middle. 

The line haul fixed plant required is one main track 400 miles long, one siding in the middle to meet trains, say two miles long.  Train control can be TWC and no signal system is required.  To minimixed the impact on other trains of unforseen delays to one train, we would probably add at least a couple of more sidings as a practical matter.

Now go to the extreme case of single powered rail cars.  We must now move 200 vehicles each way in 24 hours.  We must design for 8 vehicles per hour, or one about every 7 minutes.  Clearly we need double track since we have gone from two meets per day to way more than I wnat to figure out.  We have just doubled our investment in track.  At this density we also need a block signal system since we do not want following vehicles to run into one that stops for some reason.  Block length can be about a mile long with four aspect signals since individual vehicles do not have the brake propagation delay of long trains, but the coefficent of friction has not changed so actual stopping distance for any particular brake application is unchanged.  The signal system for two tracks probably costs as much as the second track, so we have trippled our fixed plant investment to support our new operating plan.

On train labor is a major cost element.  Lets assume that the unions are reasonalbe men and will see the advantage of replacing a two or three man crew on 100 cars with one man per car.  That increases our on train labor by a factor of 33. 

Finally there are those pesky FRA safety standards.  Broadly put new locomotives must have certain crash protective features.  Will the FRA insist that those standards still apply?  If so they will add a lot of cost and weight, perhaps so much that we need a full locomotive for each car.  This would more than negate any weight saving due to minimally powered cars and drastically increase motive power capital cost, fuel consumption, and gross ton miles.

Lets come back to these sprinters.  You want to use them to serve customers with existing sidings.  I presume you mean current or recently lost carload customers.  There is nothing that would prevent the railroad from providing direct service today except that the cost will be higher than the current system.  The quality of service, measured as transit time, would be greater than current carload.  How much more will it cost to priovide this direct carlaod service?  Is the shipper willing to pay at least the increased cost more for better service?  That is the question.  To my knowledge no shippers are willing to pay the additional cost for this quality of rail service.  They don't have to, truckers will do it cheaply and easily. 

The intermodal case is similar.  You seem to be advocating a terminal in every town.  Lets take a real example, apples from Wenatchee Washington.   GN had a circus ramp in Wenatchee years ago.  It has long been closed and the fruit has moved almost exclusively by truck for a generation.  Apples go all over the country every day.  Apple consumption is basically a function of population and competing local supply.  With this sprinter I could load up 60 containers per day in season, say 10 to Chicago, 10 to New York and Boston, 10 to Philladelphia, 10 to Kansas City, 10 to Birmingham, and 10 to Florida.  The first split happens at Shelby MT, about 500 miles east of Wenatchee.  Now I have two 30 car trains.  Assuming the capacity exists I would expect BNSF to charge me the same per train mile as they would for a 200 container train.  That is what I would do if I were BNSF. 

Assume BNSF would charge me 50 cents per container mile on 200 container minimum, or $100 per train mile.  On my most dense segment my direct cost to BNSF per container would be $1.33 per mile almost three times the 50 cent base rate, and at the extreme ends where I am moving 10 containers I am at $10 per container mile presuming I am fully loaded.  This excludes the capital and operating cost of the intermodal terminal I would have to build in Wenatchee, the capital and operating cost of my containers, marketing and agency costs, and dray costs but it is clear I can not compete with truckers providing door to door service at $2 per mile.

You may want to see freight off the highway.  I do too.  Start with increased taxes on trucks.  Start with accellerated depreciation of rail investments.  Start with State and Federal funding of railroad improvements.  Get Amtrak off freight lines.  Those would make a nice start.  I am not willing for the government to mandate modal shifts as government mandates are always expensive, and are usually wealth and utility destroyers.

Mac

Mac

[Boyd]

 If only we could:

Each and every RR car have its own 100-200 hp diesel engine coupled to generator and have one traction motor driving two axles at one end of the RR car. All computer controlled with GPS. Assemble a train together with 1 locomotive at the front controlling all of these cars. The first cars to leave the train are at the rear and the train is initially assembled in order for their destinations. On the fly cars one by one (or however how many are destined for each siding) uncouple from the rest of the train and slow down enough for the rest of the train to clear a switch to send that car via computer controll and GPS to its siding unmanned. Slowly as the train goes along all of the cars reach their destination.

The Unions would have a heart attack over a system like this one if it was ever tried.

I only read part of the first page so forgive me if someone else thought of this same way out there idea that I have.

[greyhounds]

schlimm

greyhounds

I maintain that this decision, "In the Matter of Container Service." (173 ICC 377) remains the worst economic regulatory decision in the history of the US.  It greatly harmed the country as well as the railroads.

The railroads were forced out of the LCL business by government regulation.  There is no question about it.

 

That is your opinion.  Other researchers may see it differently.  Academics respect differing opinions in research and leave room for questioning their own, rather than dogmatic insistence.

Albert J. Churella
Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938
Enterprise & Society - Volume 10, Number 1, March 2009, pp. 98-136

Abstract:

During the first third of the twentieth century, U. S. railroad executives offered local collection and delivery trucking operations. Railroad managers claimed, with justification, that these services were necessary to reduce congestion at urban freight terminals, and to increase the operating efficiency. Yet, executives also employed collection and delivery practices to discriminate against shippers and communities, and to draw business away from rival carriers, in violation of the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act, the 1903 Elkins Act, and the Transportation Act of 1920. During the 1920s, as competition from independent truckers became more intense, railroad managers used their inherent advantage in line-haul service to cross-subsidize local delivery services, to the detriment of independent motor carriers—an issue of considerable concern to Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) commissioners, following the passage of the 1935 Motor Carrier Act. The railroads’ emphasis on the productive efficiency associated with local trucking operations conflicted with the allocative efficiency advocated by federal courts and by the ICC. Commissioner Joseph B. Eastman, in particular, emphasized both the potential benefits and the potential dangers associated with coordinated rail-truck service. More broadly, the status of that service, as one of the few forms of transportation that lay beyond the ICC’s authority, stemmed from a complex interaction, over several decades, between all three branches of the federal government. By 1938, the ICC commissioners had concluded that the railroads’ local delivery operations occupied a nebulous region between rail and truck regulation. While lawful, they did not serve as a model for post-1945 efforts to achieve integrated, multi-modal transportation services.

Project MUSE® - View Citation

• MLA
• APA
• Chicago
• Endnote

---

Albert J. Churella. "Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938." Enterprise & Society 10.1 (2009): 98-136. Project MUSE. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 3 Apr. 2010 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

---

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

---

Albert J. Churella. (2009). Delivery to the customer’s door: Efficiency, regulatory policy, and integrated rail-truck operations, 1900–1938. Enterprise & Society 10(1), 98-136. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from Project MUSE database.

---

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

---

Albert J. Churella. "Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938." Enterprise & Society 10, no. 1 (2009): 98-136. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed April 3, 2010).

---

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

---

TY - JOUR
T1 - Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938
A1 - Albert J. Churella
JF - Enterprise & Society
VL - 10
IS - 1
SP - 98
EP - 136
Y1 - 2009
PB - Oxford University Press
SN - 1467-2235
UR - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/enterprise_and_society/v010/10.1.churella.html
N1 - Volume 10, Number 1, March 2009
ER -

---

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

 

So, does this mean you're not going to go read the thesis at Northwestern?  That university doesn't hand out graduate degress based on opinion pieces.  It's more than my opinion.  Those are proven, documented facts.  You can't wish them away. 

But anyway I thank you!  You just demonstrated my point very well.  Although I would hope you would read more than an abstract before commenting on the subject. 

According to the cited abstract from Churella, the railroads had an advantage over the motor carriers for the business, and the government wouldn't let them use it.  That's just what that abstract says.  As in "and to draw business away from rival carriers".  The government would not allow the railroads to compete least they draw business away from the motor carriers.  That is what your posted abstrct says.

Here's another great nonsense line:  "The railroads’ emphasis on the productive efficiency associated with local trucking operations conflicted with the allocative efficiency advocated by federal courts and by the ICC."  The railroads wanted to be efficient (which would be good for the country's economy.)  But they  were ordered into inefficiency by the Feds.  That it flat out nuts.  Don't we want efficient railroads?  I guess the Federal regulators didn't. (Allocative efficiency is what?)

The "cross subsidization" charge is pure bunk.  Anyone who understands commerce and/or economics knows that.  No for profit company will willingly cross subsidize anything.  It lessens their profits. I've run into this nonsense before on intermodal moves.  The freight is picked up by a truck and taken to a rail terminal for line haul movement.  At the destination rail terminal the freight is transferred back to truck movement for delivery.  The customer gets one bill for the entire move.  You can't realistically "allocate" parts of the revenue to various components of the transportation.  As in, the origin dray gets this much of the revenue, the rail line haul gets this much, and the destination dray gets this much. Any such allocation would be arbitrary at best.

The regulatory fantasy cited by Churella holds that the railroads were selling their pick up and delivery below cost and using profits from their line haul advantage to do so.  Again, this is nonsense.  This would require that the revenue from the move be alloacted to drayage and line haul components and no one can realistically do that.

This just proves how insane the regulation got and why it worked to divert the freight from rail to truck.  In doing so it greatly hurt the country and the railroads. 

 

[BT CPSO 266]

At least schlimm is getting back on topic.

I not saying I am or any of us our experts at rail economics, but we can look at this situation and see what basic challenges need to be meet.

 

Now I see these sprinters able to create options. I mean right now the option is to use a boxcar, flatcar, whatever, that has to continually go through several mail sorting processes and tend to move at slow speed, along with traveling with other customers' cars. The other option is intermodal; where if you are not close to a major terminal near a city, drayage kills you. This sprinter option allows to to load one of these up and it goes strait toward your receiver, at relatively fast speeds. Like I said earlier, if they are next to the rails, build small and I mean small intermodal yards that can serve several business near smaller cities.

I look at these as encouraging industry to grow instead of just relying on what exists. Maybe once a few shippers start using this service others may want to try it out to. I think the RR's need to collaborate with themselves and go out and ask potential & existing customers, and say hey? You think you would be interested in using this and think I would work for you?

I do not look at this from a railfan's perspective, I look at this from a traveler/commuter and tax payer perspective. I'd rather put up the initial cost for upgrades and expansion for these sprinters than continue to strain the highways and continue to rebuild them so often. I just honestly rather have less interaction of how the freight gets to where its going; and it may come to that point. I mean France just decided to force freight moved by rail to increase from 15% to 25% and have less of it on the road. We may come to that point.

I am a radical thinker, obviously in order for these to work, there so many changes that have to made on many fronts.

[henry6]

[

 

Another one that didn't get it!  n012944!  I never said I really liked it...and Zug, I never tried to make fun of anyone or insult anyone...I am keenly aware of how many will attack and make insults here.  I tried to challange participants to use positive attitudes to find a way to apply this technology.  No one really did and I saw that no one was going to.  No insults, no name calling, no anger on my part. Others slung a few names around, I didn't.  I know what I said, what I asked for, and why.  I am satisfied the results are in and there is no more discussion of the topic on my part.  I will leave the topic alone.

[schlimm]

 I think what was an interesting discussion turned unproductive.  perhaps what we should be examining is not so much the merits of the specific German equipment, which seems to have been misunderstood, but the underlying concept. 

Namely, is there a profitable way railroads could recover small carload/container, high value business from smaller companies that are still trackside that now is handled by truck or intermodally? 

Could costs be held down?  Only if one engineer replaces 5 or more truck drivers.

Door to door all-rail service only.  No intermodal terminals.

Only high value freight, not bulk.

Fast speeds, no wasted time in yards.  Only automatic couplers. Perhaps FRA regs would not apply since the equipment would not mix with regular freight. 

Custom schedules, overnite delivery.  Somehow out of the way of regular freight trains.

Perhaps the model, in part, that could be borrowed, would be FedEx?

Just some brain-storming; no need for anyone to get all riled up as though there were something threatening about this topic.

[blownout cylinder]

zugmann

I checked out the Brandt webpage today (http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/).  Take a look at this: 

http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/products.php?f_action=prod_detail&f_product_id=7

 Looks familiar, no? 

A friend of mine in Germany described that as an upgraded Whitcomb. Don't these get used already?

It is also up to the proponent to build his/her case for the vehicle concerned. As well as determining the market size for the idea. That is why business plans are always used to get financing from banks etc---

[n012944]

henry6

No Mac, you don't get it.  I gave you your points and I took in all others.  If you, or anybody else, read some of my posts I made it clear I was challenging all to look into the product and come up with viable answers not based on emotions and preconceptions.

 

Henry it is you that doesn't get it.  As pointed out ONE PAGE ONE, this is very similar to the Iron Highway concept.  CSXI tried to find a market for it, ran dedicated trains with it, and it failed.  CSX tried, had crews run through normal crewchange points, dispatchers parted the seas for the trains, and they made times that were competitive with trucks.  They did not work.  The CP took the technology and tried to make it work, with very little success so far.  Just because YOU think it will work does not make it so.

[zugmann]

 Sigh. Maybe we just got tired of your thinly veiled insults, Henry.

 

You accuse of us not thinking and being negative, then you want to act like you weren't surprised.

 

Whatever. 

[henry6]

No Mac, you don't get it.  I gave you your points and I took in all others.  If you, or anybody else, read some of my posts I made it clear I was challenging all to look into the product and come up with viable answers not based on emotions and preconceptions. Some did, many didn't.  I wanted to see if there was any real positive thinking and did find some.  I even noted that all were railfans here but had hoped there would be some positive inquires and ideas posted. There were a few.  I noted that I, nor anyone else here, really had the tools or the opportunity to dig deep into the concept and come up with a possible specific client or application and that I was just looking for some positive approaches instead of out of hand naysaying (which was the majority of the opinions).   I signed off because there was no sense pursuing the question as all have seemed to log on with thier thoughts and  it was drifting toward name calling and frustration from most...note the comments and after I signed off on the post.  I am not angry or upset.  It really went as I expected and I actually heard what I expected.

[PNWRMNM]

henry6

OK...I think I've heard all the answers there are.  I'm signing off on this based on the facts that it has been determined by the majority here as not worth pursuing

Henry you still don't get it.  It is up to the proponent, you, to make the economic case for this thing.  You have admitted that you do not know enough to do so.

I tried to do a quick analysis of your two hypotheses, gave you some working assumptions, some of which are absolute facts, and concluded that this train has no advantages compared to current alternatives.  If my facts or assumptions are wrong tell me so.  Fix my analysis to prove your point.

The majority has determined nothing.  You have not even tried to make an economic case for this.  Do not blame us for your failure.

Mac

[zugmann]

 "foamgasm"

 

I love it! 

 

I checked out the Brandt webpage today (http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/).  Take a look at this: 

http://road-rail-corp.brandt.ca/products.php?f_action=prod_detail&f_product_id=7

 Looks familiar, no? 

[CNW 6000]

zugmann

henry6

OK...I think I've heard all the answers there are.  I'm signing off on this based on the facts that it has been determined by the majority here as not worth pursuing: there is really no customers who would use it even if they could, the FRA won't approve its guage and the unions won't allow one man crews, one diesel unit with a two man crew has the versitility of working with an adjustible amount of cars, big Class One's would never use it and short lines don't have to.  So it is a closed issue.

 

 

Facts? Majority?  Again.  We are railfans, some of us employees too.  We just gave some real-world advice to counter the propaganda-filled  youtube video and pointed out some of the many challenges that have to be overcome before we import a barge load of these things. 

 

It's a forum.  Don't get all worked up over it. We do not represent anyone but ourselves. 

...but, but...the problem I see is that we didn't fall in love with his proposal and have a big foamgasm over it.  Whomever commented on the futuremodal thing...right on IMO.

[zugmann]

BNSFwatcher

Methinks the LIRR was the original innovator (is that redundant?) of the "piggy back" (TOFC) concept.  The NYNH&H was an early adherent and did a thriving business sixty, and more, years ago, only to be done-in by government regulation and construction of I-95.  I remember seeing a recent picture of a (NS?) hi-rail truck pulling about ten hopper-loads of ballast.  1,000 tons?  Doubt if it goes very fast, but....  REAX, too, was an early user of containers.  NYC's "Flexi-Vans" worked well, for a while, given the limited clearance diagram in a lot of the territory.  Sure don't hear much about "Tripple Crown" service.  Seems, to me, like a logical thingie, especially in some markets.  Is it going strong?  What happened to the Amtrak "Roadrailers"?  Did NS buy them?  They were good for 79-mph anyway, maybe more.

Hays

 

 

 

 

The MOW truck was probably a Brandt truck. Triple Crown is still running their roadrailers, although in dedicated, unit trains only.  Triple crown also bought the Amtrak fleet of toadtaielrs. 

[zugmann]

henry6

OK...I think I've heard all the answers there are.  I'm signing off on this based on the facts that it has been determined by the majority here as not worth pursuing: there is really no customers who would use it even if they could, the FRA won't approve its guage and the unions won't allow one man crews, one diesel unit with a two man crew has the versitility of working with an adjustible amount of cars, big Class One's would never use it and short lines don't have to.  So it is a closed issue.

 

 

Facts? Majority?  Again.  We are railfans, some of us employees too.  We just gave some real-world advice to counter the propaganda-filled  youtube video and pointed out some of the many challenges that have to be overcome before we import a barge load of these things. 

 

It's a forum.  Don't get all worked up over it. We do not represent anyone but ourselves. 

[BNSFwatcher]

Methinks the LIRR was the original innovator (is that redundant?) of the "piggy back" (TOFC) concept.  The NYNH&H was an early adherent and did a thriving business sixty, and more, years ago, only to be done-in by government regulation and construction of I-95.  I remember seeing a recent picture of a (NS?) hi-rail truck pulling about ten hopper-loads of ballast.  1,000 tons?  Doubt if it goes very fast, but....  REAX, too, was an early user of containers.  NYC's "Flexi-Vans" worked well, for a while, given the limited clearance diagram in a lot of the territory.  Sure don't hear much about "Tripple Crown" service.  Seems, to me, like a logical thingie, especially in some markets.  Is it going strong?  What happened to the Amtrak "Roadrailers"?  Did NS buy them?  They were good for 79-mph anyway, maybe more.

Hays

 

 

[henry6]

OK...I think I've heard all the answers there are.  I'm signing off on this based on the facts that it has been determined by the majority here as not worth pursuing: there is really no customers who would use it even if they could, the FRA won't approve its guage and the unions won't allow one man crews, one diesel unit with a two man crew has the versitility of working with an adjustible amount of cars, big Class One's would never use it and short lines don't have to.  So it is a closed issue.

[BNSFwatcher]

It could keep the lonely Amtrak "Turboliner" company in the kudzu of South Carolina.

Hays

[zugmann]

 I could even see a use at a limited number of industries that have raw resources close by.  Last I heard, US Gypsum still runs a narrow gauge RR.  Maybe even a way of delivering product from a quarry to the standard gauge RR?  Most places use those big conveyor belts and own old locomotives, though. 

 

I just can't see a use on a class-1.  I really can't.  Maybe we can set one up to run between the yard office and where train crews get on their trains?  

[PNWRMNM]

Henry6

I found two situations where you think this technology would work, less than trainload coal and auto parts from suppliers to an assembly plant.

Lets look at the issues and alternatives.  The issue with the coal case is that the equipment shown is dry containers.  For some additional amount I am sure coal containers could be designed, or they could be permanently attached to the underframe thereby reinventing the coal car.

The default alternative for this traffic is carload rail.  The mine ships some number of cars to some number of destinations.  This has been around since the 1830's and it works fine.  It is not as cheap as unit trains on a per ton basis, but the shipper or the consignee or both, is not set up for that volume.  They can be if they want to make the investment, but we can reasonably assume that for good and sufficient reasons they choose not to. 

The option exists today to run a small dedicated train of conventional cars between the mine and one or more customers.  That this solution is not implemented says that the current carload servce is the most cost effective solution for all players.  If the carrier wanted to reduce the car fleet, increase labor costs, and increase congestion they could do it today, but why would they?  Only if the TOTAL cost of the operation is lower than the current alternative.  Of course the customer could tell the railroad that they want their coal at a certain time every day.  The railroad would pencil it out and quote the customer a higher rate for the premium service.  The customer would decide the current arrangement, and rate, was just fine.  This is Zug's GP 38 and a few cars.  Reading's Bee Line was some variant.  There are market niches where a mini unit train or some variation does make sense.  Where is the advantage to doing it with expensive new purpose built equipment?

Your auto plant supply scenario might actually work BUT you are competing with direct truck, the speed and flexability of which you will never match, with the roadrailer based Tripple Crown service, and with rail carload which can be tailored at destination to provide very close support to plant operations.  Whether you used conventional intermodal or this German train you still need a container terminal at destination, plus the ability to move the containers from the rail unloading point to where the containers would be unloaded.  You need the same things at each origin.  These terminal investments will be made only if the transportation savings have a greater present value than the projected cost of the terminals.  You can figure each terminal to cost at least $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 each.  Terminal operating costs are additional and depend on exactly what is to be done.

To the best of my knowledge no one is doing what you proposed and I described.  The most likely reason is that the system is not more cost effective than whatever the customer is doing now.  Even if the railroads are as totaly stupid as you imagine, the automakers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year on transportation.  Do you think they enjoy that and are not always looking to save a million or two here and there?

From the video I see no evidence that the terminal for the German train would be less than for conventional intermodal.  Again the railroads have conventional intermodal equipment and locomotives in storage.  Why would anyone invest in the German equipment given these facts?

The new thing has to be either cheaper than the current, or enough better so that the customer will pay a premium price for a premium service that only the new thing can provide.  You can safely assume that shippers want to pay less for their transportation.  They may be willing to pay more if by doing so they save more than the cost of the extra transporation.  That is why there is an air freight business. 

Rail carriers know that some customers will pay a premium for premium service.  Trucks are the premium service.  For a railroad to get the truck rate the rail service must be as good as truck.  Intermodal sells at a discount to truck because it is invariably slower.  The carriers are not as stupid as you imagine.  Their issue is always and forever the margin between the rate they get and the costs they incur to provide the serice.  Marketing guys think about margin all the time since in most cases margin is what drives their bonuses.

We have found no case in which the German train can gain a premium rate compared to truck and it is clearly more expensive to operate than conventional intermodal.  Why would anyone invest more thought into it than that???

Mac

[zugmann]

 Watching those videos, I sure as heck wouldn't want to hit a truck at a crossing in one (esp at high speed).  I'll stick to my GP38, thank you.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

To Henry6:

With all due respects, your advocacy of Cargo Sprinter is starting is starting to sound like the not-very-missed futuremodal with his advocacy of open access and Roadrailers as the solution to all of railroading's problems and his responses to those who disagreed with him.

FRA approval can be a problem.  Remember that it took an Act of Congress (literally) to amend the Safety Appliances Act to allow Roadrailers in their present form.  The FRA has to act within statutory guidelines, whether they seem inflexible or not.

[zugmann]

 Now I have to shout, Henry.

 

TELL ME WHAT THIS THING HAS OVER A MP15 OR A GP38.  AND WHAT ADVANTAGES DOES IT HAVE OVER A BRANDT TRUCK?

 

The concept is NOT NEW.  I repeat, NOT NEW.  And you act like the RRs don't know about it.   They do.   I also consider not being FRA compliant, a MAJOR argument against it. You want to look at how it can work, we are telling you a few challenges it must overcome. You just can't put your hands over your ears and say "lalalalalalalla I can't hear you".  You must look at both pros and cons. 

 

And stop saying that we are personally preventing it.  We are just a bunch of railfans urinating into the wind, here.

[henry6]

We haven't spent any money on equipment yet!  We've been given a sales pitch by the hardware manufacurer and we're looking at what we might be able to do with it. Yeah, everybody's thrown dirt on it, have said it ain't gonna work, they've made noises against it, created problems and thrown up road blocks...all in the minds of the posters and not proven by inquiry and investigation.  There has been no real argument against it except that nobody wants to do the work necessary to find out whether it would work or not.

[zugmann]

 But you don't spend the money until you get the OK.  

 

Buying non-compliant rail equipment that will rust away in the back of a yard somewhere is NOT the solution. 

[henry6]

zugmann

 But the FRA is a deal-breaker.  You don't want to buy the technology, then be told you can't run it.  You would probably have to start from the ground up to make a FRA-capable sprinter, then it'd probably be too big and heavy to be as convenient as its German Bruder.

We don't know that.  It is not a problem until the FRA says no.  In effect, Zug, you have created the road block/problem by assuming something that is not yet in play.  And even if the FRA says no, there might be ways around the block or simple adjustments.  Don't know till we get there. 

[zugmann]

 But the FRA is a deal-breaker.  You don't want to buy the technology, then be told you can't run it.  You would probably have to start from the ground up to make a FRA-capable sprinter, then it'd probably be too big and heavy to be as convenient as its German Bruder.

[henry6]

Zugmann's questions still good but FRA is not an obstical yet...don't know til we take it to them,  Don't make a problem before it pops up.

CNW: I am trying to elicit thinking responses not out of hand "no's",  And I'm not trying to solicit a "yes" answer either...I am trying to put off the naysayers, the defeatists, the status quo's, in favor of thinking things through.

And Greyhounds, yes the ICC was a problem for many years but trucks and air transportation, population and manufacturing shifts, all changed it too.  And now there is another change afoot of which this Cargo Sprinter might be part of.

The Reading failed for so many reasons beyond the BEE LINE service that it cannot be counted.  And as I have stated, I have no stake in Cargo Sprint and really don't care whether it is a go or no go. I am concerned about the defeatist, naysayer, anti progress, say "no" out of hand, status quo keeping attitudes and trying to challenge postivie thought into approaching a opportunity.  I don't want to say or hear "no" without hearing about how it might work and how effort might be applied to find out about it.  I will say this, it won't work, it won't happen, it should be ignored just because of the apathetic approach by those here (with a few exceptions) so far.

[schlimm]

greyhounds

I maintain that this decision, "In the Matter of Container Service." (173 ICC 377) remains the worst economic regulatory decision in the history of the US.  It greatly harmed the country as well as the railroads.

The railroads were forced out of the LCL business by government regulation.  There is no question about it.

 

That is your opinion.  Other researchers may see it differently.  Academics respect differing opinions in research and leave room for questioning their own, rather than dogmatic insistence.

Albert J. Churella
Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938
Enterprise & Society - Volume 10, Number 1, March 2009, pp. 98-136

Abstract:

During the first third of the twentieth century, U. S. railroad executives offered local collection and delivery trucking operations. Railroad managers claimed, with justification, that these services were necessary to reduce congestion at urban freight terminals, and to increase the operating efficiency. Yet, executives also employed collection and delivery practices to discriminate against shippers and communities, and to draw business away from rival carriers, in violation of the 1887 Interstate Commerce Act, the 1903 Elkins Act, and the Transportation Act of 1920. During the 1920s, as competition from independent truckers became more intense, railroad managers used their inherent advantage in line-haul service to cross-subsidize local delivery services, to the detriment of independent motor carriers—an issue of considerable concern to Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) commissioners, following the passage of the 1935 Motor Carrier Act. The railroads’ emphasis on the productive efficiency associated with local trucking operations conflicted with the allocative efficiency advocated by federal courts and by the ICC. Commissioner Joseph B. Eastman, in particular, emphasized both the potential benefits and the potential dangers associated with coordinated rail-truck service. More broadly, the status of that service, as one of the few forms of transportation that lay beyond the ICC’s authority, stemmed from a complex interaction, over several decades, between all three branches of the federal government. By 1938, the ICC commissioners had concluded that the railroads’ local delivery operations occupied a nebulous region between rail and truck regulation. While lawful, they did not serve as a model for post-1945 efforts to achieve integrated, multi-modal transportation services.

Project MUSE® - View Citation

• MLA
• APA
• Chicago
• Endnote

---

Albert J. Churella. "Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938." Enterprise & Society 10.1 (2009): 98-136. Project MUSE. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 3 Apr. 2010 <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

---

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

---

Albert J. Churella. (2009). Delivery to the customer’s door: Efficiency, regulatory policy, and integrated rail-truck operations, 1900–1938. Enterprise & Society 10(1), 98-136. Retrieved April 3, 2010, from Project MUSE database.

---

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

---

Albert J. Churella. "Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938." Enterprise & Society 10, no. 1 (2009): 98-136. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed April 3, 2010).

---

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

---

TY - JOUR
T1 - Delivery to the Customer’s Door: Efficiency, Regulatory Policy, and Integrated Rail-Truck Operations, 1900–1938
A1 - Albert J. Churella
JF - Enterprise & Society
VL - 10
IS - 1
SP - 98
EP - 136
Y1 - 2009
PB - Oxford University Press
SN - 1467-2235
UR - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/enterprise_and_society/v010/10.1.churella.html
N1 - Volume 10, Number 1, March 2009
ER -

---

Always review your references for accuracy and make any necessary corrections before using. Pay special attention to personal names, capitalization, and dates. Consult your library or click here for more information on citing sources.

 

[PNWRMNM]

zugmann

Again, I'll ask since no one has answered yet: what advantages does this sprinter have over a small locomotive (MP15, GP38, etc) ?????

One of many key questions.  It is a lot cheaper to test a market niche with equipment you are already paying for than to go buy new, one off otherwise useless, equipment to test the niche.  Some things do not need an elaborate costly study to prove.

IIRC the Reading "Bee Line" service used conventional equipment.  The innovation was how it was deployed, not what it was.  New deployments of existing equipment are cheap.  Specialized equipment is not cheap.

Mac 

[zugmann]

 First question that has to be answered.  Would the FRA even ALLOW this thing to be used for revenue freight?  Does it even have the minimum of crash safety standards?

 

MOW has Brandt trucks, Sperry has their hy-railers, I've seen a weed spraying outfit that used a hy-rail tractor trailer, but those are all MOW.  

 

Again, I'll ask since no one has answered yet: what advantages does this sprinter have over a small locomotive (MP15, GP38, etc) ?????

[greyhounds]

schlimm

greyhounds

The railroads did not "abandon" the LCL business.  They were forced out of direct participation in that market by stupid misguided Federal economic regulation. 

 

I believe most writers would indicate the rails lost the LCL business to trucks because of improved trucks and roads, including the Interstates, not because of regulations, as well as rigid, unimaginative management lacking much marketing savvy.  

Product development does not necessarily only come about after a market niche is already there. Demand can be created by innovation.

In any case, as you are in the field, can you identify any niche yourself?  It was filled at one time by the rails, and as you say, they move intermodal today, but don't retail it.  Why not?   Why can they not be competitive in a market where there apparently is a profit to be made by someone, if done right.

I WAS in the field.

If you've got the inclination to actually understand the diversion of LCL to truck you might want to drop by Northwestern's Transportation Center in Evanston.  Get a copy of "The Transportation of LCL/LTL Freight By Railroad." and read it.  This was a thesis for a MS in Transportation.  The first chapter, "The History of Rail LCL Service" documents the railroads' very inovative responses to the then new motor freight competition and how those inovative responses were blocked by Federal regulators.

They then knew their market and what was happening to it.  The advent of motor freight was a game changer and the railroads tried to respond, only to be thwarted by Federal economic regulation. 

The LCL business was effectively lost well before the Interstate System.  In 1946 the railroads originated 24,386,724 tons of LCL.  In 1956 they only originated 6,485,147 tons of LCL.  All it took was paved roads and government regulation to move it to the highway.

First, the government stopped development of a domestic intermodal container system.  This system began to develop almost as soon as trucks that could carry a decent load of freight were developed.  That would have been in the early 1920's  The container system dropped rail costs tremendously and kept them truck competitive in terms of price and service for high value commodities such as LCL.

In 1931 the idiot misguided Federal regulators ordered the railroads to increase their rates for container service to the point where it was not competitive with the truckers.   I maintain that this decision, "In the Matter of Container Service." (173 ICC 377) remains the worst economic regulatory decision in the history of the US.  It greatly harmed the country as well as the railroads.

The railroads needed to use trucks to pick up and deliver the LCL shipments.  The regulators restricted this further hampering the ability of the rails to compete with the truckers, who were under no such restrictions.

Companies called "Freight Forwarders" existed and specialized in LCL.  These middlemen combined rail freight with motor freight in the most efficient manner.  The regulators ordered the railroads to increase their charges to the forwarders, diverting more freight to highway.

The railroads understood that serving smaller communities by substituting truck movement for way freight LCL delivery made the systems more efficient.  The regulators greatly restricted this and hampered the ability of the rails to form efficient intemodal LCL systems.

There's more, but if your so inclined you may read it for youself.

The railroads were forced out of the LCL business by government regulation.  There is no question about it.

 

 

 

[CNW 6000]

I will admit the concept looks interesting on paper and at the first impression.  Maybe someone could convince a progressively thinking shortline into trying out a set down a lightly used branch.  All of the "catches" have already been mentioned though...and they're hard to discount.  I don't believe this would work on a Class 1 mainline as space is generally too hard to come by.  The possible rare exception would be if there's a known lull (for example "overnight: 11 P to 5 A" - hypothetically speaking).  Maybe a line would have only 1 or two through trains during that time and the locals only work during the "day" (again, conjecture) when the industries they serve are open.  The odds of those factors (plus shippers with small loads that need to go somewhere local and fast) coming together are remote IMO. 

You did mention, Henry, in one of your earlier posts about the Reading RR doing things that worked and the Bee Line was a moneymaker.  The Reading closed shop a long, long time ago.  If what they did worked that well they'd still be around, right?  Trains were smaller and the safety rules of today didn't exist (largely) back then as I understand things now.  That and many networks had capacity then that's been ripped out now.  If a RR had 4 mainlines between 2 cities. and typically two were used directionally you still could have one for express trains and another for stuff like this w/o getting in each other's way.  That's also really expensive to maintain and, I believe, not practical long term.  That's how RRs need to think.  If you doubt that, Google why Warren Buffet opted to purchase the BNSF stock.  It's a long term investment.

You are also insinuating that "nobody has done the research on this".  This makes me think of two questions:
1)  Why don't you do it to prove the point and the professionals on here (hopefully for you) wrong?
and
2)  Do you have a stake or vested interest in this concept/company?  To me it almost seems like you do.

I think the whole discussion boils down to this:
If something is shipped in a "metal barrel" now that used to get shipped in a "wooden crate" but isn't shipped in the "wooden crate" because of many factors (damage, cost, economies of scale, etc) why should the shipper go back to a crate because it's got a new wrapper on it?  Times change, policies and procedures change.  Sometimes technology finally catches up to someone's dream from way back when about an idea that may have been relevant "back in the day".  That idea may not hold water now.

[henry6]

BT CPSO 266

 So, basically what is keeping the sprinter from taking off here in the US, is initial start up cost and not making "enough" money.

I personally, wonder if the industry has even looked into it? What exactly is it going to take for this thing to be implement onto the nation's network?

At least a Tipperillo for BT CPSO 266.  No answers but he is thinking and asking the right questions!

[henry6]

PNWRMNM

Henry, how do you KNOW that no railroad has looked at this technology?  As you point out this site is just a gabfest of the ignorant.

Some of us who do know something about railroad economics, marketing, and operation have pointed out that this technology has no advantages over the alternatives, and would be more costly than those alternatives to deploy.  If you choose to advocate for this fine, but you need to show that it has an economic advantage rather than call those who do not see an advantage "negative". 

Your feelings do not create a market niche for this equipment.  Your feelings are not sufficient reason for rail managements to invest their stockholder's money in this or any other technology that does not show a real potential to be deployed profitably.  Only congress can do that.

Your posturing and self assumed moral superiority will not win friends nor influence people. 

Mac

I HAVE TO SHOUT:

 THAT I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE HERE "IGNORANT"!  I have just said that many are reacting emotionally and not from a positive point of view nor seem willing to really look into marketing and operation possibilities.. 

AND I DON"T ASSUME MORAL SUPERIORITY.  I am trying to challange participants to think and look for possible positives and opportunities for the concept.  Superiority seems to be oozing from those who want to rest on the laurals of what is and not think about what could be and attack me for wanting answers. 

I have not dealt out my feelings of what could be but suggested several services which might be looked at for the Cargo Sprint or an adaptation.  My only feelings is that too  many have just turned this idea out to pasture without looking at what might be possible.  No railroader has responded by saying he or his railroad took the Cargo Sprint to a client or examined the possiblities in some kind of service. I am not looking for a positive or negative answer but a professionally and practiaclly  searched answer.  We've only heard from those dealing off the opening presentation.

[BT CPSO 266]

 So, basically what is keeping the sprinter from taking off here in the US, is initial start up cost and not making "enough" money.

I personally, wonder if the industry has even looked into it? What exactly is it going to take for this thing to be implement onto the nation's network?

[PNWRMNM]

henry6

PNWRMNM

Henry,

In what situation will either the railroad or the customer be better off using this technology than anything AND everything else out there?  With realistic costs please.

Mac

 

How can I answer that Mac, when the whole board of directors, operations, the marketing  and sales departments, customer relations experts,, and the rest of the staff here have already dumped the idea.  So we don't know what the application could be, we don't know what the costs are, we don't know what the benefits are, we don't know what the downsides are, we don't know how a customer might feel if approached, we just know that nobody seems to want to look into it.  But they do know they don't like it.

Mac, I'm not a railroader and have no financial interest in nor cares whether this flies or not.  I am just surprised that there is no one enterprising enough to look at what it is and how and if it might work.  This is a discussion board about railroading, the Cargo Sprinter in particular, by a bunch of railfans, most of whom apparently are not managers of any kind, especially railroads. 

Henry, how do you KNOW that no railroad has looked at this technology?  As you point out this site is just a gabfest of the ignorant.

Some of us who do know something about railroad economics, marketing, and operation have pointed out that this technology has no advantages over the alternatives, and would be more costly than those alternatives to deploy.  If you choose to advocate for this fine, but you need to show that it has an economic advantage rather than call those who do not see an advantage "negative". 

Your feelings do not create a market niche for this equipment.  Your feelings are not sufficient reason for rail managements to invest their stockholder's money in this or any other technology that does not show a real potential to be deployed profitably.  Only congress can do that.

Your posturing and self assumed moral superiority will not win friends nor influence people. 

Mac

[schlimm]

From the Windhoff website:

The CargoSprinter is a railcar featuring characteristics with regard to design and technology that are much related to a truck. For this reason, it is often called the truck on rail, combining the benefits of a fast, relatively cost effective and flexible means of transport. One transport unit can convey up to ten interchangeable containers resp. containers with a length of 7.8 m and 16 tons individual weight. The CargoSprinter is to allow for continuous traffic without any interruption. Therefore, coupling is done within a few minutes by means of the automatic train coupling and non-contact data and energy transmission. In fact, each CargoSprinter unit is self-supporting, but within three minutes can be combined to a container train formation of up to seven units. At common target positions, the individual units are separated or combined to new formations.

Advantages:

• The CargoSprinter features the same transporting capacity as five trucks, but requires one driver only.
• The engines guarantee low exhaust gas emission values acc. to Euronorm 2 (or also COM 2)
• Fuel consumption is by 15% lower than that of five trucks (as per information of railway company even up to 35% saving for several coupled units)
• Compared to road traffic, rail traffic is safer.
• With a speed of 120 km/h, the CargoSprinter is considerably faster than the truck.
• Absolute reliability and schedule compliance.
• Economy has been put to the proof in field trial.

CargoSprinter, Deutsche Bahn AG, Germany

[henry6]

SCHLIMM GETS A CIGAR.  Key phrase, "....not knowing the customer who walks a way empty handed....you don't worry about the opportunities (for revenue) lost."  He thought it through rather than dismiss on emotion.

Greyhound, several concepts of possible use have been put forth here, just rejected out of hand.

Right, PAUL, LCL was done in by trucks and air almost in partnership.  Even the Post Office was using air more and more without charging the premium.  It was too costly for each town to get a REX shipment,or LCL car dropped off and picked up.  And will GIVE YOU A CIGAR, too, for thinking things through a little.

[schlimm]

CSSHEGEWISCH

Intermodal traffic has pretty low profit margins to begin with so a railroad has to selectively market its business if it expects to make money. 

 

I don't know if the Sprinter concept would work, but the point seems to be to capture all the profit in the intermodal by eliminating the truck altogether as well as the consolidator. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I have paged through a number of OG's dating from the mid-1960's which included maps or listings showing the number of piggyback ramps in just about every division or crew change point.  Many of them were small endloading ramps which could handle only one or two flat cars at a time and were served by the local freight.  They were eventually abandoned because there wasn't enough business to justify their existence.

Cargo Sprinter seems to be a concept geared at going after every last bit of freight traffic.  Intermodal traffic has pretty low profit margins to begin with so a railroad has to selectively market its business if it expects to make money.  Cargo Sprinter seems to be an expensive way of obtaining more business.

[schlimm]

greyhounds

The railroads did not "abandon" the LCL business.  They were forced out of direct participation in that market by stupid misguided Federal economic regulation. 

 

I believe most writers would indicate the rails lost the LCL business to trucks because of improved trucks and roads, including the Interstates, not because of regulations, as well as rigid, unimaginative management lacking much marketing savvy.  

Product development does not necessarily only come about after a market niche is already there. Demand can be created by innovation.

In any case, as you are in the field, can you identify any niche yourself?  It was filled at one time by the rails, and as you say, they move intermodal today, but don't retail it.  Why not?   Why can they not be competitive in a market where there apparently is a profit to be made by someone, if done right.

[greyhounds]

schlimm

[1.  In retailing there used to be a saying about not knowing the customer who walks away empty handed.  One of the problems in focusing on containing costs is you don't worry about the opportunities (for revenue) lost.  So much (almost all) less than trainload and much earlier, the LCL, business has been abandoned to trucks.  Maybe it's too late for that.  But this concept, flawed as it may well be, seems to be an attempt to rethink that.

 

The railroads did not "abandon" the LCL business.  They were forced out of direct participation in that market by stupid misguided Federal economic regulation.  Just as they were largely forced out of the perishable business by regulation.

They move a lot of LCL (now LTL) to this day.  They just don't retail it.  But they do handle a significant amount of intermodal LTL for the truckers.

I'm still waiting for someone to identify a market niche for this Cargo-Sprinter thingy.  That's where you start, with a market need.  Not a product.

[schlimm]

zugmann

Small yards have been shut down everywhere.  There are fewer and fewer locals.  Hardly any 3-man crews around anymore that make switching an industry so much easier (And quicker).  The RRs have manpower set up to have the fewest men possible, and still maybe, be able to run the intermodals (if no one marks off). 

 

A few comments as a neutral bystander (no name-calling and no negativity):

1.  In retailing there used to be a saying about not knowing the customer who walks away empty handed.  One of the problems in focusing on containing costs is you don't worry about the opportunities (for revenue) lost.  So much (almost all) less than trainload and much earlier, the LCL, business has been abandoned to trucks.  Maybe it's too late for that.  But this concept, flawed as it may well be, seems to be an attempt to rethink that.

2.  Crew size would be important.  Looks like a one-man operation.  Maybe an operator would pay the host RR to use trackage.

3. Fast, scheduled, premium-priced door-to-door service is what is being promoted to smaller shippers (not bulk commodities like coal). Hence the short, fast (75 mph) train, with mostly containers (not intermodal).  How to do that without getting in the way of regular freight looks like a big problem, but there might be creative ways.

4.  This sort of operation would best lend itself to a local/regional scale, not long distance or transcontinental.

[henry6]

Zug gets a cigar...me, nor anybody else has done the research; Zug you are correct!  But that does not address a thing I have said....and Mac, not demeaning anyone you've mentioned, but they have submitted nothing but their fears without research either.  No one here has researched it enough to throw it way.  .  Its as simple as that.  So far here, it is nothing but internet rhetoric...I don't care what the Germans have done, or anybody else.  Has someone here actually taken this product and tried to apply it, in a total business type way, to any and all possiblities in the US?  Even one? I don't mean the "I don't think..."  or , "....the unions won't..." or "becuse it doesn't fit the track"  or whatever else the knee jerk reaction is, but really done anything other than type words into this thread?  I admit I have done nothing but put words down, too...that I am not a railroad manager or marketer or in operations or sales,...neither am I in a business that might  be able to use this product.  I have suggested some applications but they have been brushed aside by emotion rather than reasearch and application.

[PNWRMNM]

Henry,

You are not paying attention.  I know of at least three posters here who have real railroad marketing experience.  At least three are or have been train dispatchers.  Many are train or engine crewmen.  Carl runs the hump at Proviso and Ed switches cars for the PTRA.

I would agree with Greyhounds that railroads are weak in terms of marketing develoment.  They are also good at price discipline.  There must be a margin or you pack up the toys and buy muffler shops.

If you are trying to sell equipment to a railroad the risk adjusted margin must be better with your gear than with any and all other possibilities.  This equipment does nothing to reduce costs, and increases many cost elements. 

The point those of us with railroad experience are trying to make is that "NO" can be, and often is, a considered, rational answer.

Mac

[zugmann]

henry6

Yeah, the Reading ran in a different time period and what they did worked.  I wonder if this Cargo Sprinter were available then if it would have been better....

Again, Zug, you've just dumped the concept without any reasearch, just "feelings" and conjecture.  Nobody here...and I really don't expect anybody here to do it...has researched or or otherwise tried to apply this technology.  I don't expect anyone here will because no one here is a railroad manager or planner or in sales and marketing...we're just railfans who like trains. 

 

 

In the Reading's time, they also had plenty of smaller branchline engines.

 

And you are promoting the concept on your feelings.  You haven't done the research either.   It isn't my department to study these things.  But if you think that the major railroads don't look at all these new concepts, then you are mistaken. They have purchased Brandt trucks. They know what's out there.

 

PS. I'm not 'dumping' on the concept, but giving it my honest opinion as a simple, present day, under-30 yrs old RRer. That's it.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

[henry6]

Yeah, the Reading ran in a different time period and what they did worked.  I wonder if this Cargo Sprinter were available then if it would have been better....

Again, Zug, you've just dumped the concept without any reasearch, just "feelings" and conjecture.  Nobody here...and I really don't expect anybody here to do it...has researched or or otherwise tried to apply this technology.  I don't expect anyone here will because no one here is a railroad manager or planner or in sales and marketing...we're just railfans who like trains. 

[zugmann]

Conrail did experiment with the Coalveyer in the late 80s in western PA ( I believe).  Later they used it for stone or dirt movements in Jersey.  An interesting concept, but probably too specialized and not in enough demand to work. I fear the same thing here. There are less-than trainload coal loadouts.  I belive the Reading and Northern may have one or 2.  But with those operations, you usually need to move around LOADED coal hoppers.  They are not light.  Is this thing capable of moving (and stopping) multiple loaded 100 ton hoppers?

As far as assembly line and intra-factory RRs, it probably is still cheaper to buy some old locomotive and use that.  And if it's an insular RR, then they don't have all the pesky FRA stuff to deal with.  If a factory is large enough to have a complex RR system in it, I would guess that it probably has enough need for real locomotives.  Otherwise they could just push the railcars around with any large machines.  Those big CAT wheel loaders seem to do nicely. 

 The reading also ran in a different time period.  You can do a lot more work if you throw the rule books in the trashcan. 

 

 

 

[henry6]

PNWRMNM

Henry,

In what situation will either the railroad or the customer be better off using this technology than anything AND everything else out there?  With realistic costs please.

Mac

 

How can I answer that Mac, when the whole board of directors, operations, the marketing  and sales departments, customer relations experts,, and the rest of the staff here have already dumped the idea.  So we don't know what the application could be, we don't know what the costs are, we don't know what the benefits are, we don't know what the downsides are, we don't know how a customer might feel if approached, we just know that nobody seems to want to look into it.  But they do know they don't like it.

Mac, I'm not a railroader and have no financial interest in nor cares whether this flies or not.  I am just surprised that there is no one enterprising enough to look at what it is and how and if it might work.  This is a discussion board about railroading, the Cargo Sprinter in particular, by a bunch of railfans, most of whom apparently are not managers of any kind, especially railroads.  I suggested mine loads of less than unit train size or movements between two factories or as a segment of an assemblyline.  I pointed out the old Reading BEE LINE service which someone else noted was a money maker, a service in which this could maybe have worked.  Overall it has been dismissed out of hand by this board of posters.  For the sake of real railroading I hope there are real railroaders out there who have seen and looked at the Cargo Sprinter concept had have attempted to apply the technology to some part of his/her railroad or some shipper on his/'her line.  If not then we should be sinking in pizzas. 

[zugmann]

henry6

Trackmobile was a concept...but it is not this Cargo Sprinter.  Railroads did not develope diesel locomotives; they were brought to the railroads by manufacturers,  Plenty of manufacurers have brought cars, equipment, signaling, raidos, you name it to the railroad and the railroad adapted or adopted as needed.  Why not look at this Cargo Sprinter with a positive view seeking an opportunity to adapt, adopt, and use it to make money.

I just can't understand how negative the comments have been here, no one looking at what this might be for the railroad or its customers. 

 

 

True. But Brandt has been making their rail trucks for over 10 years.  And except for a few MOW rigs, they sure haven't seen to caught on as they would have liked, I'm sure.  And that has the advantage of rubber wheels (plus a commercial truck platform that can be maintained at an alread-established service network), so they could deliver cargo one-way on the rail line, then take the highways back home if no freight had to be moved.  

My question to you Henry:  what does the sprinter enable a RR to do that it can't do with a end-cab switcher or GP38 (even the Brandt truck)?  And can it do MORE and be more flexible than those?

 

A new toy train is not the answer.  A new method of operations is needed.  Small yards have been shut down everywhere.  There are fewer and fewer locals.  Hardly any 3-man crews around anymore that make switching an industry so much easier (And quicker).  The RRs have manpower set up to have the fewest men possible, and still maybe, be able to run the intermodals (if no one marks off).  You can have all the small trains you want, but without crews and local terminals, it won't be much help.

[blownout cylinder]

henry6

I just can't understand how negative the comments have been here, no one looking at what this might be for the railroad or its customers. 

I don't know that it is a negative vs positive thing here. As long as some of us do not take into consideration some of these issues brought up and treat it like an us vs them thing one will not get around it.

 It could be that we are looking at it a little funny maybe.

Look. Apparently it seems to be not as successful as what it appears--even in Europe. If it will work anywhere it may not be on the class I roads. Why not branchline/shortline operations? Then again, just how small a load are these things going to take anyways? And where to?

And again, let us not think that this is negation but real issues that need some thinking through.

[PNWRMNM]

Henry,

In what situation will either the railroad or the customer be better off using this technology than anything AND everything else out there?  With realistic costs please.

Mac

[MStLfan]

I doubt the cargosprinter concept will ever be utilized on mainlines like BNSF's transcontinental. If it would then the cargo would have to be very valuable and time sensitive for a railroad to give up a stacktrain.

But what about using this concept on a regional railroad or a group of branchlines where the question won't be upgrade to the latest axle loading standard but abandonment? Maybe because a neighbouring class 1 has facilitated the building of a mega elevator that loads out 110 car covered hoppers (and when will that standard change?). Maybe it could be used to move trains from the smaller elevators to the new big one. Somewhere there is the point that trucks are no longer cost efficient but fully upgrading the raillines to the new axle loading standard is not financially possible. Also you don't have to deal with all those pesky long double stack trains.

Another possibilty is at the end of the run of those big stack trains. How far are those containers trucked? Not all raillines connecting to the terminal are clogged with double stack or other traffic. Maybe there is a market for the concept there too?

Additional thoughts: why think containers with doors at one end only? Why not one with doors in the side or with sides out of cloth? I have seen trucks that unloaded regular 20 ft containers all by themselves, no additional cranes needed. Or use it to load at a factory and unload at another factory down the line.

No reason to use this technique if you can make more money or make the same amount more efficiently with other thechniques than this one. Where this might be interesting is on the margins of those other thechniques if it can be done efficiently. It does come close to that integral train concept by John Kneiling, including distributing powered axles throughout the train if memory serves me correctly.

Btw, the reason the concept didn't work out was a combination of factors, including lack of support by the big Deutsche Bahn, the concept being plagued by technical problems, being tried at the wrong time on a busy line (between Hamburg and Osnabrück on the one side and Frankfurt (Airport) on the other while there was the world expo in Hannover where the units were combined) and the cost of units jumped upwards to double the initial projected cost.

The technical problems apparently were overcome as the technique behind it was used in British maintenance vehicles.

greetings,

Marc / Naomi

[henry6]

Trackmobile was a concept...but it is not this Cargo Sprinter.  Railroads did not develope diesel locomotives; they were brought to the railroads by manufacturers,  Plenty of manufacurers have brought cars, equipment, signaling, raidos, you name it to the railroad and the railroad adapted or adopted as needed.  Why not look at this Cargo Sprinter with a positive view seeking an opportunity to adapt, adopt, and use it to make money.

I just can't understand how negative the comments have been here, no one looking at what this might be for the railroad or its customers. 

[blownout cylinder]

The only Trackmobile I've seen was at Goderich ON's main elevator. That is owned by the shipper---

[jeffhergert]

greyhounds

Victrola1

 I remember reading a Midwest short line toyed with a small consist concept. It was a semi tractor with dual highway and rail capabilities. The idea was to pull a few grain hoppers from elevators to nearby grain processors.

One man could drive out to an elevator, lower the flanged wheels. The driver could spot empties left by conventional service and bring back a limited number of loaded hoppers. To my knowledge, this idea remains nothing more than an idea.

In this country, the short container train may have been of interest 60 years ago when there were still such customers on lightly used branch lines. Given the speed and flexibility of truck competition in such a market, it would probably would have been for naught.

The economy of scale is missing.

It was the Iowa Interstate under previous ownership.  I talked to the guy who drove the tractor pulling the rail cars.

I know we've talked about these before.

http://www.iaisrailfans.org/gallery/ABPhotos?AIOtmp?full=1

Scroll down, 3 pictures together on the right side.

 

Jeff

[greyhounds]

Victrola1

 I remember reading a Midwest short line toyed with a small consist concept. It was a semi tractor with dual highway and rail capabilities. The idea was to pull a few grain hoppers from elevators to nearby grain processors.

One man could drive out to an elevator, lower the flanged wheels. The driver could spot empties left by conventional service and bring back a limited number of loaded hoppers. To my knowledge, this idea remains nothing more than an idea.

In this country, the short container train may have been of interest 60 years ago when there were still such customers on lightly used branch lines. Given the speed and flexibility of truck competition in such a market, it would probably would have been for naught.

The economy of scale is missing.

It was the Iowa Interstate under previous ownership.  I talked to the guy who drove the tractor pulling the rail cars.

[BaltACD]

henry6

 EDIT ADD: Overall I can't believe the negativity, lack of intiative, foresight, imagination, creativty, hunger, understanding of railroading, understanding of research, understanding planning, understanding of marketing, or desire to utilize your physical plant, people, and equipment, to do your best to make it work. 

Since we are in the world of 'can't believe'.  I can't believe the lack of understanding that is being displayed on how a railroad company goes about the business of maximizing it's return on investment and getting the maximum utilization out of all the elements of that investment...locomotives, cars, tracks, terminals, employees and all the other facilities that are a part of a railroads operation.  The carriers are continually investigating new ideas to better serve the customer at reduced levels of investment and cost.  All new ideas have to run the gauntlet of reality, which can be a very difficult obstacle. 

As a 40+ year rail professional I seen many ideas floated, some have worked, some were tried and failed and been adjusted into something that did work, some were tried, failed and left for dead, others never saw the light of day.  As has been stated, the CargoSprinter is a concept that is searching for a market where it can profitable within the investment and operational realities of existing rail networks.  Reality bites.

 

[greyhounds]

henry6

 But if I were a real railroader I would have my sales, my operating, my marketing, my real estate, my planning department heads at least, and anyybody else I could think of,  in a meeting for a presentation and brainstorming session.  Hopefully I wouldn't need to charge any one of those departments with investigating and coming back with a report.  If I felt I did need to appoint a department to run with it, I would go and make pizzas or hamburgers.

 EDIT ADD: Overall I can't believe the negativity, lack of intiative, foresight, imagination, creativty, hunger, understanding of railroading, understanding of research, understanding planning, understanding of marketing, or desire to utilize your physical plant, people, and equipment, to do your best to make it work. 

Again, this is backwards.  You don't start with a product/service and "brainstorm" how you could sell it to existing or potential customers. 

You instead start with a knowledge, understanding and analysis of customers' (existing and potential) needs and "brainstorm" how you can meet those needs better than your competitors.  You then try to come up with a product/service to meet the identified needs.  You start with the market need, not the product/service. 

Having said that, I think the US railroads (with the exception of the NS) tend to be weak in the marketing/market development area.  This is understandable.  Before deregulation they simply were not permitted to do real marketing/market development.  A "Marketing Culture" could not develop.  After deregulation they fairly rapidly (15 years or so) went to a situation in which they had all the business they could handle.  No need to develop new business when your railroad is "full".  Now, we'll see what happens when they're just a little bit hungry.

As to this "Cargo-Sprinter" thingy, the basic concept is not new.  As far back as the 1950's a transportation consulting firm, A. T. Kearny, was touting the "Minipiggy".  Short/short haul trains have been around for a long time to serve customers in situtations where it makes economic sense to run such trains. 

But always, you start with the market and the market needs, not the product/service you want to push on the customers. 

 

 

 

[zugmann]

 Henry - don't take my statements as representative of any company.  If you think RRs are standing idly by, you are mistaken.  From business units to spinning off lines to shortlines, to offering rebates to customers - a lot is getting done. 

 

But to serve a customer, it takes manpower, machines and infrastructure.  And you better make enough off of that shipment to justify those.  If it costs you x amount to run any type of train (from a sw1001 to a sd90mac down a branch to pick up a boxcar, you better be making >x on that fright over a certain amount of time.   Otherwise you are just throwing money away.  Not what we need to be doing. 

 

This sprinter concept is not new in the least.  It's been done in many other forms, and has never taken off.  How many years have we had trackmobiles?  Any major RR use one of those on a branch?  I think not.  Why do we need another form of equipment when we already have plenty of smaller locomotives that can easily serve that customer on Monday, then go do something else on Tuesday? And the FRA isn't going to allow these sprinters to play with the big trains on the mainline.

[blownout cylinder]

henry6

 EDIT ADD: Overall I can't believe the negativity, lack of intiative, foresight, imagination, creativty, hunger, understanding of railroading, understanding of research, understanding planning, understanding of marketing, or desire to utilize your physical plant, people, and equipment, to do your best to make it work. 

I can't wait for the day when you can teleport the freight from one place to another. The only problem would be all these little voices crying--"help me! help me!!"

[henry6]

Mac...you've got my examples wrong...McD and Pizza Hut could delve into each other's product but not run trains.  So, if we are in the railroad business: have track, engines, charters, etc. we should be doing that or else get out and make pizzas or hamburgers.  And I maintain the weakness of American business has been in the game of making money rather than earning money by provide a product or service...too often going for 80% of $100 instead of 50 or 60 percent of $200.  Therefore if we are in the railorad business looking to make a buck we better look into the prospects of this or that and apply ourselves not just say it won't work and walk away from it...no you don't jump on every new idea that comes along, but you better examine it and test it and understand it because if you don't somebody else just might jump into it before you and you're toast.  We are railfans here and it is easy to dismiss anything out of hand.  And maybe be right.  But if I were a real railroader I would have my sales, my operating, my marketing, my real estate, my planning department heads at least, and anyybody else I could think of,  in a meeting for a presentation and brainstorming session.  Hopefully I wouldn't need to charge any one of those departments with investigating and coming back with a report.  If I felt I did need to appoint a department to run with it, I would go and make pizzas or hamburgers.

 EDIT ADD: Overall I can't believe the negativity, lack of intiative, foresight, imagination, creativty, hunger, understanding of railroading, understanding of research, understanding planning, understanding of marketing, or desire to utilize your physical plant, people, and equipment, to do your best to make it work. 

[zugmann]

Ulrich

It has some merit I guess...but any fuel savings or efficiency over trucks is eroded by rail's somewhat more circuitous right of way in order to keep grades below 2.5%. It would be better to modify a tractor trailer combo..put a flanged wheel on the tractor and a guide rail into the interstate highway...when a driver gets on he can put it on "autopilot" until his prgrammed exit where he once again takes over at the wheel.. The sprinter doesn't offer door to door flexibility nor does it offfer the economies of scale that a normal train does..this it seems to offer the worst of both worlds in that sense.

 

 

Now we're re-inventing the truck wheel.  We have flageways for major routes.. they are called "railroads".  

[Ulrich]

It has some merit I guess...but any fuel savings or efficiency over trucks is eroded by rail's somewhat more circuitous right of way in order to keep grades below 2.5%. It would be better to modify a tractor trailer combo..put a flanged wheel on the tractor and a guide rail into the interstate highway...when a driver gets on he can put it on "autopilot" until his prgrammed exit where he once again takes over at the wheel.. The sprinter doesn't offer door to door flexibility nor does it offfer the economies of scale that a normal train does..this it seems to offer the worst of both worlds in that sense.

[zugmann]

The problem with railroad is that you are dealing with a fixed infrastructure that takes years to recover the cost of investment. If a company wants to ship one boxcar load a week, and are located along an active line, well, that is what locals are for. If they are located along a long-abandoned rail line, well, that adds to the challenge. I don't know what these sprinters cost, but it will still probably be cheaper to buy a used locomotive (or drag one out of storage). Then if the business dries up, you can use that locomotive somewhere else. The sprinter? Not so much. This concept is not new either. Many small branches had doddlebugs, combines, mixed freight locals, etc. But the tracks and crossings need maintained no matter what runs on them. So in many cases, it just is not feasible to run a railroad. So use a truck. Take the truck or trailer to an intermodal yard, transload center, or a good ol' fashioned team track. Or rent/lease space at another industry that has excess rail capacity. If the railroad fully endorses every pie-in-the-sky concept that comes across the pond, they'll never make a dime for their shareholders.

[Victrola1]

 I remember reading a Midwest short line toyed with a small consist concept. It was a semi tractor with dual highway and rail capabilities. The idea was to pull a few grain hoppers from elevators to nearby grain processors.

One man could drive out to an elevator, lower the flanged wheels. The driver could spot empties left by conventional service and bring back a limited number of loaded hoppers. To my knowledge, this idea remains nothing more than an idea.

In this country, the short container train may have been of interest 60 years ago when there were still such customers on lightly used branch lines. Given the speed and flexibility of truck competition in such a market, it would probably would have been for naught.

The economy of scale is missing.

 

 

 

 

[PNWRMNM]

BT CPSO 266

I admit I am one of the amused bystanders, but I am just looking about how the railroads can capture more freight business. I am looking at this as a shipper looking to move 4-7 containers of freight, located close/beside to the rail, to a receiver that is close/beside to the rail.

You are asking the wrong question.  It is NOT about capturing more freight business, it IS about making more money.

Your hypothesis is too vague for analysis, but you can safely assume the default alternative is truck direct.  Trucks have relatively low terminal expensis and relatively high line haul expenses compared to rail as a general rule.  Trucks have the tremendous advantage of no intermediate handling and no need to aggregate and disagregate shipments which the rail mode must do to attain the low line haul costs and to limit the number of trains over any given track segment per unit of time.  Big trains will give more transportation output per unit of time on any given fixed plant than will small trains.  This is basic physics.  The trucks' direct service advantage, combined with a new high capacity taxpayer financed right of way, is the reason trucks now have 90% of the combined rail/truck market.

This technology does nothing on its face to minimize rail terminal costs, which for this purpose should include the truck dray on each end.  If line access costs were computed on a train mile basis, which I suspect is the case, then this technology has a much higher line haul cost per container mile.  It is container miles we are trying to sell.  No terminal cost advantage and higher line haul cost is not a winning formula.

One of the reasons that rail has survived as a mode is that management does NOT jump on every new idea that comes along.

Henry - Your example of hamburgers and pizza proves the point.  I don't see McDonalds selling pizza nor Pizza hut selling hambergers.  As Clint Eastwood said "A man has got to know his limitations."  So does a railroad.

Mac

[aricat]

There is nothing wrong with the idea of a short container train. We can look back to Santa Fe's Super C trains of the 1960's. The Twin Cities and Western operated a short container train in 2008 for a customer. The British and other European systems operate very short container trains by our standards. They are all operated by locomotives.

[carnej1]

henry6

A concept in search of a market is nothing new in our world....gasoline was a volitile product gleaned by refining crude oil that had not place to go until the gasoline engine was invented to propel automobiles...how many other things can be added to the list.  Anyway, that's no excuse for not accepting it...in fact I think I gave a couple of good examples of how and where it might be adapted.  Moving less than trainload lots of coal from small mines; inter and intra plant movement of materials and parts even as part of an assemblyline; a manufacurer than produces a set number of units of product in a given day or week that all goes to one other location...there are so many opportunities to adapt this product to...it just takes ingenuity, creativity, dedication to the job, or just a light bulb being turned on in someones' mind at the right time at the right place with the right thing.  Inginuity, rescoursfulness, creativity are things not automatic or as finely defined and produced as a computer sourced solution.

As for stepping on a rail...electricution had nothing to do with the rule...it is simply that it in much easier to turn and ankle or lose balance or somehow injure oneself;   Common sense says step over not on.

Cargosprinter would not be very useful in moving bulk materials(maybe hauling those Coaltainers NS experimented with but why not just run a shorter train of gondola?) and it would be overkill to use it as a short haul vehicle within a plant (what can it do that an old switcher and a few conventional cars can't in an industrial setting?).

It's a cool piece of technology but the fact that it has not been succesful in the market it was designed for (Europe) says something..

[BT CPSO 266]

 

PNWRMNM

Railroading is a business.  It is all about the money.  It is not about running particular types of trains to amuse bystanders, which is what most of us here are.

 

I admit I am one of the amused bystanders, but I am just looking about how the railroads can capture more freight business. I am looking at this as a shipper looking to move 4-7 containers of freight, located close/beside to the rail, to a receiver that is close/beside to the rail.

I understand what you are saying about not choosing a train of 10 containers over 200. Yes, we have to build up the infrastructure of course and what would have to be done is self explanatory. I know the rails are a business and our out to make money, and these small sprinters do not make as much as the big guys, but if you get enough of the smaller trains running you just opened up a new profit margin.

I mean if you are like me; I do not mind using tax dollars to build up the infrastructure for these faster, smaller sprinters, to be able to pass the bigger trains and bringing  more of a "highway" concept to the rails. Once I start hearing solutions to solving our growing freight problems by proposing triple-trailer long and bigger & heavier trucks onto the highways that's when I have a problem.

We have a perfectly good freight transportation system concept that is not being used to it's full potential. The less interaction with how our freight gets to us, the better, if you ask me. I would sure make traveling on I-80 a lot more pleasant and less stressful. I don't mind trucking but it is freight that does not need to be on the highway, if it had another option that I have a problem with. 

 

[henry6]

Ok,,,we're in the railroad business, i.e. we have track, we have locomotives, we have cars, we can also use anybody elses cars and locomotives on our track, we want to make money. We do not make pizzas, we don't play baseball, we aren't in the business of fixing computers.  So an idea comes along that is different than what we have been doing.  What do we do?  Bring up all the problems and stumbling blocks of why we can't use the product or service.  Dismiss it as not fitting our concept of who we are or dismiss it because someone else has invented the truck.  If we were in the pizza business would we quit because someone came up with a hamburger?  As a baseball team do we quit because someone invented basketball and football and hockey?  And new computers come along as fast as Indy cars so we quit?  The exucses I hear here for not exploring this concept, this tool, this whatever it is, whatever it could be, these excuses are indicative of what's wrong with American businesses: no creativity, no dedication to the industry, complacent with the status quo. There are exceptions: look how the cell phone industry and the computer industry keep reinventing themselves every day, litterally and figurativly.  It seems the railroad industry does not have such foresight, creativity, hunger, desire, killer and survival instinct.  Or maybe it is just because we are fans worshiping what was and what is and don't want to and and want to have to deal with the future?

[PNWRMNM]

The railroad runs trains to make money.  Rail customers use the railroad to make money.  How will this equipment make both parties more money than what they are doing now?  The first question is the economic question, not the political one that most of you have jumped on.

This technology has three big economic problems.  One it is truck competitive so your revenue per container mile is limited and low.  This problem applies to all rail intermodal and is basic to anything you contemplate in the intermodal field. 

Two, it still requires a top lift type of terminal to get on/off the train, just like regular intermodal.  The shot of the train pulling into the covered loading dock was interesting, but did not address how the containers would be handled once the train stopped.  Could a major factory have a captive terminal? Yes, but it is another layer of cost. 

The reason rail intermodal is cost competitive on long hauls and does so poorly on short hauls is the combined dray and terminal costs on each end.   You need a lot of lower cost line haul mile savings to cover the dray and terminal costs.  What this technology would tend to do is enable a higher number of low volume terminals located closer to the customers which would reduce dray costs.   Whether or not that makes economic sense would require some serious analysis.  Rail intermodal started out in that fashion and found out that the less than trainload service that resulted was not marketable. 

The third, and to my mind most serious problem is that it is very wastefull of railroad resources in terms of track space, or pathways, whichever way you want to look at it.  From a dispatcher's perspective this train of 10-70 containers consumes as much track space, and requires as much attention as a 200-250 container double stack train.  Some of you blithely assert that the railroad should lay more track to support these tiny trains.  Where is the money going to come from?  No railroad manager would propose such a thing in house let alone go to the financial market with it.  Even if it is government money, the project would be an economic waste, a wealth destroyer.

In the short run the capacity of a railroad is fixed.  As Balt ACD pointed out there are a lot of places that were at or near capacity before the current recession hit.  Imagine that you are Matt Rose.  You have a legal duty to your shareholder to make as much money as you can with the assets you have.  How many 200 box stack trains would you cancel to free up space for a 10 box train?  In other words how many $20 bills are you going to throw away to get a shiny dime?

How about as a feeder service between somewhere and an existing big volume terminal, or even a captive between two points?  This is concevable, but it would be a lot quicker and cheaper to pull some cars out of storage and find a GP or SD 40 to pull them than to sink new capital into this fancy equipment that will do no better at accomplishing the economic purpose.

Railroading is a business.  It is all about the money.  It is not about running particular types of trains to amuse bystanders, which is what most of us here are.

Mac

[samfp1943]

I think that Greyhounds summed this "Sprinter" concept up very suscintly, " A concept in search of a market."

My feeling is that these ideas do infact have a place in our developmental processes for new ideas, ideas that are currently outside of the industry accepted model.   Our current Intermodal model is very functional and sure could be called successful. Yet it is always seeming to be "tweeked" to find a better way of doing something that is working, and attempting to do it better ( an idea that the inventor hopes can be sold proftably while creating value for the purchasers. 

The original 'piggy-back' concept (nee NYC, B&O and PRR)  now evolved into double stacks, containers and now evolving into dry and refrigerated segments.  AS well as the evolvolution of the "Tripple Crown's system" must be included as well.

Someone in commenteing, mentioned,' we do not need to do everything that the Europeans do.'  True, ut if they have an idea for a new way of doing somethind, why not try it and see if it will make money for the owners withing 'our' systems constraints.  The Sprintyers seem to fit in the latter category.

Don't forget the Strick Corporation's Cab Under Tractors of the 1970's concept for getting more volumn on a then limited ( by Federal Laws) length limits.  When that concept was fielded the immediate Teamster's Union was to almost 'stroke out' in opposition. (Linked here):

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/649/2/41011.0001.001.pdf

And there was the Ryder Coroporation's Turbo tractor (Center Cab ) Concept with the drive train in an easily removable package.

[henry6]

A concept in search of a market is nothing new in our world....gasoline was a volitile product gleaned by refining crude oil that had not place to go until the gasoline engine was invented to propel automobiles...how many other things can be added to the list.  Anyway, that's no excuse for not accepting it...in fact I think I gave a couple of good examples of how and where it might be adapted.  Moving less than trainload lots of coal from small mines; inter and intra plant movement of materials and parts even as part of an assemblyline; a manufacurer than produces a set number of units of product in a given day or week that all goes to one other location...there are so many opportunities to adapt this product to...it just takes ingenuity, creativity, dedication to the job, or just a light bulb being turned on in someones' mind at the right time at the right place with the right thing.  Inginuity, rescoursfulness, creativity are things not automatic or as finely defined and produced as a computer sourced solution.

As for stepping on a rail...electricution had nothing to do with the rule...it is simply that it in much easier to turn and ankle or lose balance or somehow injure oneself;   Common sense says step over not on.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

In response to an earlier posting, Reading was plagued with lots of short hauls and was losing business to trucks as a consequence.  After much negotiation with the operating brotherhoods, it came up with Bee Line Service in around 1965 as an attempt to make money on short hauls and short consists.  The brotherhoods agreed to relax rules regarding crew requirements and seniority districts (among other things) for this service.  Reading found that it was able to actually make money on short hauls as a result.

[zugmann]

blownout cylinder

zugmann

  ...

I'll mention what I saw here------Trucks.  We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We do not need to do everything the same way Europe does.

 

 

True.  But the answer didn't quite fit the question so I took it out. 

 But yeah, there has to be a point where it is just not economical to run a train.  If someone needs to move something small a short distance, they can hire a truck. 

 

[blownout cylinder]

zugmann

  ...

I'll mention what I saw here------Trucks.  We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We do not need to do everything the same way Europe does.

[zugmann]

  ...

[BT CPSO 266]

 

Paul_D_North_Jr

greyhounds

Start with a job that needs to be done and come up with a tool to do the job.

  That's vintage John Kneiling - esp. the part I quoted.  Thanks for bringing us back to reality. 

- Paul North. 

The need is; attracting businesses with smaller shipments looking for more flexible shipping options by rail on shorter hauls.

[beaulieu]

BaltACD

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.

 

 

The situation  is similar in much Europe, the track capacity is too valuable to waste on such a small train. Under the German track access pricing scheme, that Cargo Sprinter would be charged the same price as a 600 meter long Intermodal train. Running over a Category F3 track both trains would be charged € 2.68 per km. There are some additional fees, path allocation, Express priority, etc, that also work against a short train.

[jeffhergert]

It seems like everyone is always trying to reinvent the wheel.  I think that many of the problems this and other systems are trying to solve is less technological and more institutional.  The level of profit to be made, even when costs are cut to the bone, may not be sufficient to attract the interest of the railroads for some business.

To be successful on a wide spread basis you would almost need a totally dedicated infrastructure that can handle high volumes on short headways with open access.  Light Freight Rail anyone?  Maybe it could be something that could be integrated with the HST passenger corridors proposed around the country.  Freight moving within a region could use this, then go to Heavy Haul rail for transport between regions.

That something designed for a specific area (Europe) hasn't caught on there yet kind of says it all.   

Jeff

PS.  I think it's been quite a while since most truck drivers were Teamsters.  I heard some time ago that the percentage of drivers who were Teamsters was around 25%.  I think it's dropped since then.    

[blownout cylinder]

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--

 

[BaltACD]

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

Giant's Stadium is being torn down as we post....Will Jimmy be found there?

[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

[BaltACD]

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.

[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.  

[TH&B]

greyhounds

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.   

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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 ?   

- Paul North. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.

  That's pretty much what I was trying to say early yesterday morning (03-31) over on the Couplers thread [don't ask how I wound up doing that, though - it's a long and convoluted thought process    ]. 

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 . . .

- Paul North. 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

greyhounds

Start with a job that needs to be done and come up with a tool to do the job.

  That's vintage John Kneiling - esp. the part I quoted.  Thanks for bringing us back to reality. 

- Paul North. 

[greyhounds]

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.

 

[TH&B]

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.

 

 

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.''

- Paul North.

[ndbprr]

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.

[zugmann]

 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. 

[henry6]

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).

[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"..

[BT CPSO 266]

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. 

 

[wabash1]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[creepycrank]

I think the key phrase is... In Germany over 300 businesses have little used railroad connections. So they probably shipping from little used siding to little used siding. In this country the sidings disappeared ages ago, hence our reaction is that extra handling is required to get the shipment to the tracks and again delivered on the other end. Anyway don't we have a trailer with railroad wheels system in place anyway.

[henry6]

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.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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.

[schlimm]

 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.

[henry6]

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.

[schlimm]

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.

[henry6]

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)? 

[samfp1943]

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

[john_edwards]

 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