Trains.com

Can Cargo Sprinters be used here in the US?

14806 views
156 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, April 4, 2010 1:18 PM

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".

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, April 4, 2010 1:45 PM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Moderator
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: London ON
  • 10,392 posts
Posted by blownout cylinder on Sunday, April 4, 2010 2:54 PM

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----

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/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, April 4, 2010 3:08 PM

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.     

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Sunday, April 4, 2010 3:56 PM

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

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, April 4, 2010 4:18 PM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2009
  • 798 posts
Posted by BNSFwatcher on Sunday, April 4, 2010 6:52 PM

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

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Sunday, April 4, 2010 9:29 PM

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.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, April 4, 2010 10:12 PM

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. 

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

Moderator
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: London ON
  • 10,392 posts
Posted by blownout cylinder on Monday, April 5, 2010 9:35 AM

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 itWhistling

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/

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Monday, April 5, 2010 9:52 AM

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 itWhistling

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.  

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, April 5, 2010 10:28 AM

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.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, April 5, 2010 11:26 AM

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)

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, April 5, 2010 6:56 PM

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?

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Moderator
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • From: London ON
  • 10,392 posts
Posted by blownout cylinder on Monday, April 5, 2010 8:05 PM

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

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/

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 6:44 AM

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.

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 8:15 AM

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."

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 8:58 AM

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.

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.

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 402 posts
Posted by BT CPSO 266 on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 9:57 AM

 

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.

 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 10:40 AM

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

 

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 11:20 AM

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

 

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 11:28 AM

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.   
 

 

 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

 

 

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 8:07 AM

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? 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 8:29 AM

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. 

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.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 9:21 AM

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. 

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 9:32 AM

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.

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.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 5:18 PM

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 8,156 posts
Posted by henry6 on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 5:51 PM

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

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.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 6:11 PM

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

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 7:32 PM

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 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy