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.