henry6I 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.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
henry6Trackmobile 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.
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.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
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
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.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
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.
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.
henry6Yeah, 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.
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.
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.
zugmannSmall 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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
[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.
greyhoundsThe 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 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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 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?
At least a Tipperillo for BT CPSO 266. No answers but he is thinking and asking the right questions!
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?and2) 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.
Dan
schlimm greyhoundsThe 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.
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) ?????
zugmannAgain, 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.
greyhoundsI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.