http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,716654,00.html
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I would like to see this technology implemented here in the United States.
I totally support this because:
Parking, Hours of Service, Weather situations at mountain passes, reductions in driver time on the road, more home time and so on so forth.
If drivers had these things in every little city and mountain passes or interstate choked gridlock prone areas, these trains can bypass all of that and save the headache.
I can see myself taking a trailer out of Jonesboro Arkansas with a load of Tools for California and when reaching say... The Oklahoma Line, I can drop off said trailer and see it go away, pick up a empty or loaded trailer bound for somewhere in Arkansas or even bridge it to Memphis or something, and drop that trailer off and grab an empty and take it home for the night.
If everything works out well. I can probably still turn in 400+ miles per day in state and be pretty close to home. I still need that sleeper in case something came up.
I can see the North East Cities or Chicago using this. If a driver is new out of school, they are not yet... ready for such loads and can haul it to say... McLean Illinois and put it on rail there somewhat close to Chicago and grab a load going somewhere else.
Then it would be up to a native of Chicago with his day cab or sleeper cab to grab this load and deliver it and pick up another.
Any way you can by pass or totally remove alot of things that stop wheels from turning on the choked highways means you are more mobile, free to run and consume less hours and have more time to take care of yourself and make nearly as much or more than you did before.
This is not to say that the days of 2000 mile hauls are over, Teams still do that very well. My wife and I can be in LA monday AM, in Jersey wed PM and back to LA by saturday morning legally and we have for weeks.
With this system we can probably just stick a LA load bound for jersey somewhere in Tennessee and return towards... Arizona or some such with a LA bound load and possibly speed up transit times.
Whoever designs and build these depots for transfers of trailer to rail and vice versa are going to find themselves in need of dedicated rails free from interference from other traffic and it is going to be a high volume, high pressure and extremely HOT, critical and stressful place with a lot going on.
It may make a place like Seagirt in Baltimore obselete. Yes they load a Intermodal train and ship it out but it takes time. Imagine if a cargo ship pulls in, throws a bunch of containers on chassis and day drivers slap them into a transfer place and it's gone out of Baltimore quick without rush hour traffic or other worries...
Who knows.
Chicago might simply make all those VERY large yards dedicated to Intermodal disappear and simply have a few beamer spots coming in from all over the usa with fleet of bob tail trucks ready to grab these loads and take em downtown.
Imagine for a minute that... 50 trailers show up on a train with two engines or so. They are unloaded within a half hour and reloaded within the hour and gone. The 50 trailers are also gone and everything will speed up.
Why send a driver on a 2000 mile run when you can just simply stick it and let the train take it.
Regarding mountain passes.
Some drivers are not allowed to run I-70 in winter because they have no experience yet. Yet we can send a bunch to Denver Colorado, have them transfer to train there, train goes to Grand Junction in a few hours and the trailers continue on thier way regardless of the weather conditions on I-70
What about Hunt's Point. NYC. You can have a train show up with a bunch of reefers loaded with food at 2 am and be unloaded and gone by sunrise. No more worrying about having drivers fighting traffic each midnight from New Jersey or Connecticut facing dangers to and from hunts point. And you will have more drivers willing to take loads in that direction instead of refusing them.
owner operators can probably buy a bunch of trailers. Load them in Little Rock or whatever, corral them on such a beamer transfer make these loads go wherever they are going and bring in inbound loads to deliver. I am not sure what the freight rates are for drayage work but it will be less stress on the Owner Operator except wondering where "His" fleet of trailers are and when etc.
I can go on. But I would prefer sometimes to make allowances on a train for at least a FEW complete rigs to drive onto the flat car and the driver simply go into sleeper while train rolls on. After the night's sleep or day's sleep is finished, single can drive off at the nearest beamer and continue his road trip.
No more worries about lot lizards, theives, scammers or any usualy trouble makers at night in the less safe places to park when the usual legal places are all full as they are every night.
And the best savings of all? If you are facing end of hours, you are tired and driving badly risking your life and those of others (Driving over tired is worse than driving drunk, I have done it way too many times....) and no parking spot in sight for at least two states and several hundred more miles... just hop onto a beamer and sleep as the train rolls on.
I like it.
This looks like a variation of Iron Highway and other systems designed to allow un-reinforced trailers to be used in TOFC service. One disadvantage that I see immediately is that the system loads the trailers onto pallets which would in turn be loaded on spine cars, a lot of capital would be tied up in making sure that there are enough pallets available. Nothing seems to be mentioned about tiedowns for the trailer onto the pallet.
Apipe dream.
1. The investment in the palletts would be enormous. If a pallet is not available when the truck is, the whole system has failed. A pallet would cost very near what a dry van would.
2. We already have an intermodal system that is working well. UPS,YRT, Schneider, J.B. Hunt and many others use it every day. Introducing a different system makes about as much sense as a different track gauge.
3.European hauls are short. Switzerland has a similar drive on system to avoid 1 tunnel. Our system is oriented to longer hauls.
4. The fact that there trailers are not intermodal compatible is moot the like of the trailer is short enough that 10 years would effect the majority of the changover. If a trailer is not compatible then it will sustain damage to equipment and contents.
Interesting, but really there's nothing new under the Sun with this. There have been a number of similar systems proposed (and in some cases tested) both in the U.S and Europe. The fact that a dedecitated facility needs to be built for this is a drawback, at least for North American applications.
There are several competing Roll on, Roll off systems that don't require the special infrastructure that this does..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Of course, without almost any consideration, the idea is rejected. Maybe it's not good, but I doubt if DB Schenker would be considering it if it were so poor. Someone rejected the idea b/c European hauls are short, but I noticed that the first route planned, Rotterdam to Riga, is about 1200 miles, hardly a short haul.
schlimm Of course, without almost any consideration, the idea is rejected. Maybe it's not good, but I doubt if DB Schenker would be considering it if it were so poor. Someone rejected the idea b/c European hauls are short, but I noticed that the first route planned, Rotterdam to Riga, is about 1200 miles, hardly a short haul.
And of course you complain yet again that an idea is rejected simply because some point out its flaws.
My first concern has been posed already (about getting the empty racks where needed). In an intermodal yard you have a large concentration of cars and trucks, so the empties are (usually) avaliable.
But my second question: intermodal yards don't just put trailers on cars, but they also block the trains. How would you handle blocking in a system like this? Unless you use this as a feeder for a large intermodal yard, but then what would be the point?
Roadrailers didn't need cranes (or racks) either. Just rail bogies and some forklifts. And we have seen how far that has come. As far as speed, it does not take long to load up an intermodal train at all. Maybe this is a solution searching for a problem? Maybe good for Europe, but I don't think American RRs are interested in anything that adds MORE fixed infrastructure.
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
no no no no no.
Forget existing railroads. Forget it.
Forget the 430 or so drop lots to intermodal and vice versa such as what JB Hunt runs. Forget all of that. I used to run for them prior to 911 and the drop procedere plus papers and booklets are thick.
Collect ALL of the trucking companies together. Pool capital. Raise the remainder from Uncle Sam etc.
Start pouring concrete to a new rail track that runs off the mainline of any major railroad and attach a Beamer facility to it. Hell, in my town there is about 4 miles worth of double track mainline that has space for such a facility. We only get a few dozen trains a day. Usually from Little Rock to St Louis and back. There are hours and hours of empty track time in the day time.
Slap beamer facilities down and set out rail cars to take whatever REGULAR 40, 45, 48 and 53 foot trailers and slide them things onto the rail cars built specifically for the beamers. Dont worry about the cargo already loaded into the trailers.
Next set of train that has the time, tonnage capacity etc picks up the beamer cut of 30 or so cars with thier trailers and take it on down the road.
To cover all 48 states with beamer facilities no more than two hours from any state capital will take a certain number and slap down beamer facitlies designed to bypass major cities like Baltimore and DC or Memphis, nashville, LA or whatever. Anything that gets jammed in traffic. Chicago too.
Slap those beamer pads down in country side within two hours drive from chicago area, surround the area with them off each major interstate and major us highways.
Eventually we will take alot of heavy trucks OFF the roads for good periods of time and remove the need to horsewhip a tired single driver to deliver 2000 miles of it..
Slap the things down at donner pass so that when it all snows and closes teh interstate, the trucks load at the top and bottom and forget it. Those trailers will get through.
If Switzerland can do it to bypass thier famous Gottard tunnel and they are not as big as Texas even.
Why cannot we, the greatest power in the western world not do the same.
Last Chance: Sounds like you see some potential in this. Perhaps a new company or a trucking company with some imagination and an open mind will implement something like this.
Last Chance no no no no no. Forget existing railroads. Forget it.
What do you mean by that?
I'm going to assume he means that for innovations like or similar to this to happen, it won't be initiated by the railroads, but brought to them as a proposal/package by some intermodal firm. Too much old, rigid thinking.
That's a LOT of setting out and picking up (don't forget the empty racks that will have to be set out). Then you will have to block them somewhere. Lots more property for someone to buy. Lots more track and switches to maintain (not to mention the whole rack system). Lots more special railcars to buy. At least you want the gov't to pay for it,.
Hmmmm. I wonder why the RRs aren't jumping at this?
It may not be feasible, but reasonable people at least pause to consider possibilities. And what's with the snide comment about government? Nobody mentioned that. And perhaps the reason the railroads aren't jumping on this could be: 1. it is new, 2. they may be looking at it but you aren't aware of it yet, and/or, 3. the RR's aren't exactly known for "jumping at" much of anything.
Look, contrary to your first snide remark, I have no problem with disagreement. I have admitted that I really don't know if this concept is worthwhile, but I am not so arrogant that I need to immediately dismiss ideas.
schlimm It may not be feasible, but reasonable people at least pause to consider possibilities. And what's with the snide comment about government? Nobody mentioned that. And perhaps the reason the railroads aren't jumping on this could be: 1. it is new, 2. they may be looking at it but you aren't aware of it yet, and/or, 3. the RR's aren't exactly known for "jumping at" much of anything. Look, contrary to your first snide remark, I have no problem with disagreement. I have admitted that I really don't know if this concept is worthwhile, but I am not so arrogant that I need to immediately dismiss ideas.
Last Chance alluded to the gov't. (the uncle Sam remark).
Of course the RR looks at new systems The trade magaizines cover this stuff all the time (and there's always a new system proposed). I don't own a RR, I'm just kicking the idea around and bringing up some challenges/issues like anybody else would. I didn't dismiss this system, just that I don't see it happening, but like I said, I don't make the decisions.
I asked a few simple questions that go unanswered. That's ok, no one here probably has those answers. But the questions remain. The snide was in response to your initial snide.
Let’s say you have one of these Beamer hubs set up to transfer fifty trailers to fifty railcars. The hub is completely empty of trucks and railcars. There are fifty pallets positioned for the arriving trucks.
One by one, the trucks roll in and drop their trailers onto the pallets and secure the trailers to the pallets. When the fifty pallets all have trailers, a fifty-car train is brought in. All fifty railcars in the train are lacking pallets.
Then, in one simultaneous motion, all fifty pallets with trailers on them are moved onto the railcars. And one big actuator simultaneously shifts the locks on the railcars to secure the pallets to the railcars.
Then the train stops here and there along the route at other hubs and drops off trailers on their pallets. So when the train is finally empty, it will be entirely free of pallets. All of the hubs will therefore have pallets arriving and departing, but not necessarily in balanced quantities.
Now you could have more pallets than railcars to help overcome spot shortages, but inevitably, pallets would need to be deadheaded back to where they are needed. How big of a problem would that be? Railroads are always deadheading empties and even motive power, so couldn’t a strategy be developed to move empty pallets to where they are needed occasionally?
If the pallet can become a structural element of the railcar in addition to being a structural element of the trailer, the tare weight of the pallet-less railcar could be reduced to the point where the pallet would not represent excess weight in the trailer/pallet/railcar package.
i. Last Chance actually said the "raise the remainder from the government, etc." Hardly the same meaning as your comment: "at least you want the gov't to pay for it," in which you indicated he wanted it to be government funded. Different words, different meaning.
2. "And of course you complain yet again that an idea is rejected simply because some point out its flaws." Exactly. Why reject ideas out of hand or do nothing but point out what you see as flaws? In most creative circles where the "brainstorming" technique is used, an idea is thrown out and refinements and additions are thrown out rapidly. There is no critiquing at that stage or running through a long list of objections of why it can't work, been tried, nothing new, etc. The point is to try to flesh out the idea before finding all the negatives. Plenty of time for that later.
It really is a difference in perspective. You are far more knowledgeable about the rails than I ever would be. Yet this is presumed to be an open discussion. Additionally, it strikes me as rather amazing to say that because the RR's aren't jumping at an idea (which originates in Europe) it must be flawed. I am not aware of any notion that German engineering is generally impractical or flawed. They tend to be highly pragmatic.
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were and ask 'why not?'." - JFK
Look at the infrastructure. What woudl be cheaper and easier in the long run? Having 2 or 3 packers/lifts, or 30 rack loaders? And with the whole trailers, you are now limited to single-stacked trains. With the heartland and Crescent Corridor projects, the goal seems to be adding doublestacks, not taking them away.
Sure you can respot the empties, but the one poster spoke about having these beamers all over the place. Sure it sounds good, but ti takes time to swap empties with loads. the intermodal yards I served had about 3000' of pad track. As you pull into the pads, the empty chasis are already staged, the packers are waiting, and as soonas you cut away, the guy is there to toss up the blue flags/derails. By the time you shuffle your power, the train is already pretty much unloaded, and the new containers are being placed into position. Amazingly efficient, but then multiple tasks are being performed on one track. You are not limited to the fixed placement and number of racks. This system is adding mer pieces to the puzzle. You lose the packers/loaders, yet gain the rack. So you have railcar, rack and trailer.
Would it work? With lots of investment, I'm sure. Is it worth the investment? The current system isn't really flawed that I have seen (except for maybe too few terminals, but that can be addressed as easily as switching over to a Beamer system).
schlimm i. Last Chance actually said the "remainder from the government, etc." Hardly the same meaning as your comment which implied it would have to be government funded.
i. Last Chance actually said the "remainder from the government, etc." Hardly the same meaning as your comment which implied it would have to be government funded.
C'mon Schlimm. We both have more sense than to believe that.
And at least don't take teh quote out of context. From last chance:
"Collect ALL of the trucking companies together. Pool capital. Raise the remainder from Uncle Sam etc."
My wallet is already hurting!
PS. I never mentioned anything about the engineering (or european engineering) being flawed, so let's stick to what I do say. They run their trains differently over there, I'm sure. Maybe it will work great for them. Maybe it could work here, but my opinion is that I'd be surprised to see the RRs jump on it.
What exactly is the advantage of the Cargo Beamer system over how we handle trailers here? Is it faster, or more productive overall?
The FRA says they want to take 80% of long haul trucking off of the highways and put it on rail to reduce CO2 emissions. How much would that increase TOFC from today’s level?
It is a very innovative concept. The problems I see( as someone who spent an inordinate amount of time looking at the world through a windshield).
A.) a lot of precision equipment moving around a somewhat less precision environment, that would on the face of it be victimized by the vagaries of weather.
B.)Individual levels of talent in positioning/handling equipment.
C.)How well maintained the mechanicals are.
D.)Potential delays due to enevitable mechanical, and operational failures.
E.)The terminal handling costs of drayage arounf the facility (or movements onto or off site for deliveries)
1) The Costs of land necessary for the physical plant, and storage facilities; expenses (based on locations chosen/).
Believe me, I am not trying to be totally negative about the need for this type of technology, the environment in Europe is a much different one than is experienced in North America. Therefore the operational considerations are much more varried.
Some time back I was envolved in a corporate partnership with a trucking company and a railroad. We were to load and deliver trailers to them at a midline terminal and they would load those trailers (basically a stock LUFKIN tlr onto the appropriate TOFC var and deliver to the Nortern Terminus(Chiil) and to the Southern Terminus. (NOLA). Our company would dispatch our company drivers to deliver the assigned trailer to it area destination, or we would contact an area dray company to deliver and/or reload that trailer back to the railroad for transportation. The dray operators at our prpfits and the expertise of the trailer handlers (for the RR) was very questionable. Read that as astronomical damage billls. What looked ver profitable on paper turned out to be a managerial clamity without our own oversight people on site at the railroad facilities. It became very problematic very quickly.
Several years later it was a very different experience and partner environment. as we moved trailers to populate our West Coast operations. BNSF worked well with our company.
Huh? So carriers like UP will have to scrap their terminals, and rebuild all of them for the sake of this technology? It aint gonna happen.
First, intermodal is a very low margin, requiring volume. 50 car trains on a single level? The price you charge will have to be twice (if not more) than what intermodal customers pay now, to make up for the loss on volume.
Second, in some corridors, it would create capacity issues. It is common to see stack trains over 100 cars long (that means 200+ containers), stoping hither and yon would require a large investment in sidings to facilitate capacity.
Third, even if you cycle 50 car trains in and out of a terminal, you would have to have far more storage at those facilities. And you could not dray them out of the way if they are on pallets. Which would require far more terminal movement of trailers than needed. As it is now, a driver checks in, and pulls his trailer or container to his spot on the pad. No further handling needed other than to load the train once unloaded.
Maybe this idea is great for some short line or regional. But a class one moving hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of containers/trailers every year, it would be a monumental logistical nightmare. It might be nice for Germany, but last I looked, this is not Germany (we have heavy haul and long distances).
Good luck running all those extra trains. Ain't enough main line capacity as it stands now. I watch as they weave the intermodal fleet around coal and manifests right now. If you multiply that by four, you will have a mess out there. Not to mention, for every train you run, you need more crews, more resources, and so forth.
Trains right now are scheduled, to maximize capacity, locomotives, and crews. While many times they do not keep up time, the only way you keep things running is by an orderly process.
I carefully read what everyone else has to say.
In the 40's everything was by hand. You had many men working and much equipment. That cost money.
In the 50's Diesels showed up and suddenly a ABBA with two men aboard can replace three engine sets and 6 men crews. Scrap that steam was the cry raised nationwide.
In the 60's interstate trucking started to take hold. They had much labor packing and repacking trailers in very large terminals. To go into a early 60's Terminal with a truck and trailer meant you will be docked and your load is already being assigned to several other trailers going here, there and everywhere.
Sometimes freight sat for days. Loaded and reloaded leading to OSD damage etc
In the 70's you had Malls and such. Suddenly everyone wanted to ditch the warehouses and terminals and do it all JIT (Just in time.) Which meant teams.
At the same time the United States quit doing alot of jobs, everything got exported. It will take a few decades. But now we have ships stacked off the west coast from China waiting to off load into entire trains of double stacks rolling east. Some trains go direct to ports on east coast for Europe. Cheaper and faster than running a ship all the way to Europe from China.
I have seen the rise of the container yards off ships onto trains in baltimore. That was called Seagirt. That land did not exist until after the dredging was finished for a major tunnel. Suddenly they can strip a ship slap the stuff onto a train and roll it out while hundreds of drivers sit in port waiting inspection with a box and hopefully pass so they can leave.
Now everyone wants stacking. Triple Crown runs trailers on wheels then off wheels. but I don't see that nation wide.
I have been following the Swiss example with the Gottard Tunnel. There are so many trucks, some with hazmat that they do things a little different there. If the Swiss can put the trucks on trains and eliminate the in tunnel danger... we can do the same thing by eliminating mountain passes dangers and that of serious city congestion as experienced in Chicago and such.
I have ridden a subway into DC sometimes and it only takes about 35 minutes or so to get to downtown on foot without fighting traffic or enduring problems in bad areas down there. My car is parked in one of the outlying stations safe for the time being. That 4.00 ticket for round trip or whatever is less than what I would burn in fuel to and from downtown DC.
Truckers today are under incredible stress. So are the Railroads etc.
After some thought I realized that we are treating these things as trains to be built, loaded and crews found and powered. No no no no.
Have the individual rail cars tied together with their own power of whatever kind and take the truck and trailer out to where it needs to go.
The Government has managed to spend all the money found in the Free World in the last few years. All of which needs to be paid back somehow and it will take generations. And for what? Nothing.
The Existing railroads are locked into the same old Aged and rusted thinking that they must operate as efficiently (Read cheaply) as possible and with as much freight as possible all the time. Throw in Amtrack or some other train on that mainline and everyone has to start weaving a solution around all the trains. Eventually the railroad system MUST fail just as the Interstate system has FAILED.
Trucks cannot find parking, Trains cannot find clear track.
Railroads have tried thier best by pooling power, renting by horsepower to each other, pooling crews and sometimes entire mainlines carry traffic one way east and another complete mainline carries traffic west.
Many times I passed Flagstaff and look at the tracks. If the trains are MOVING... everything is in order.
If there is a problem ANYWHERE BETWEEN LA all the way to say... RATON then trains will stack and sit for a few days. The law says that a engine crew can be dog caught and taken to a place to sleep once they die on the hours.
Truck drivers cannot.
I don't see any innovating going on. I see rail banks, rail to trails for future use. I see slow, old and out of the way railroads rusting away because no one uses them anymore. Eventually the existing railroads MUST run out of capacity and grind to a halt if they dont either slow things down (Already is... not by choice) or build new routes.
How many times have I seen that Median strip on our interstate system. Wide spaces of grass with a bit of Geology here and there. You can put a few lines of track in each direction there. Or a HOV vehicle lane.
The entire transportation system in the United States is obsolete. Everyone is trying to hold on to old and aging ways because it works. but it is a zero sum race to the bottom because no one is getting anything done.
Regarding mountain trucking. You are going into a generation that has not seen real mountain trucking in bad winter storms. They will get killed and cargos lost. The Beamer System can keep a mountain pass functioning as long they can keep the rails clear even after the interstate itself is buried in 5 feet of snow drifts.
How many times have you folks see thousands sleeping on a airport floor because a noreaster or a strong winter storm wiped out the aircraft? Usually Amtrak on the North east corridor is the last link to fail when thier switches finally freeze over.
People are going to have to sit down and say. Ok, China is no good anymore, Freight sucks because no one has a job anymore. Trucking is getting too expensive because it is harder and harder to get people who are able to withstand 2000 mile trips at .30 a mile they demand .60 a mile as a company driver or maybe 1.50 as a owner operator.
Screw it. Stick that load onto a train.
here you have a hodge podge of systems all trying to compete. I have see the old 80's era stack cars that are totally rusted out against the modern 2000 era little well cars that can carry a wonderous amount of weight on TWO 53 foot containers using as little material as possible.
I can type until I am blue in the face and probably will. But everything we know today is dead. Obsolete.
Look at what Germany is doing with their system look at what others are doing. Then think about the United States here at home and make it work.
Things take so *** long to get built in the United States. It took 20 years to replace the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in DC and it is finally done or nearly so.
While that is going on, I am totally bypassing DC on US 15 or I-81 until eventually you cannot find a north south route without fighting everyone else in traffic.
Finally think about this....
CSX made commericals about trees picking up truck trailers out of gridlock and sticking it onto trains. Showing a highway with no trucks flowing and a train rolling. What a pretty fantasy.
But with this Beamer system and a little bit more short thinking instead of 2000 mile hauls (That is dead too.) think 200 mile runs. Make it happen.
That way everyone gets to go home at night after putting in a proper day's work running freight.
Just a couple of differences between US and German practice that jumped out of the original article and bit me:
So, what does this new system offer that isn't done already with containers and stack trains? Or with present-day TOFC operations?
Then, too, about all of the CargoBeamer terminals to be built here and there. Unless you build them in the desert, or in some farmer's ex-corn field, you are going to run head on into the inevitable NIMBY-BANANA opposition. Even in the desert, the Sierra Club will probably object.
Hey! Maybe we could sell this as the freight component of the National HSR network. (Now all but forgotten, the original plans for the first Shinkansen in Japan included running solid trains of power platforms to carry JRF - ex JNR - standard containers between Tokyo and Osaka at Kodama speed.)
German engineers may be pragmatic - but their designs tend to be overly complex and unnecessarily expensive. In U.S. railroading the KISS principle rules.
Chuck
Sir, I don't think you quite understand about capacity, or what really goes on out there. The "weaving" you mentioned, is due to the simple fact, that some trains are a higher priority than others. Others physically, are not wise to run over 60 mph. The hotshots such as the Refrigerated Express to Selkirk for example is allowed 75 mph. Coal trains move out of the way, same with manifests with speed restricted cars (some as slow as 35 mph, although all of them are now customer cars, not system).
The solutions in adding capacity are innovative. And they work. Union Pacific for example has spent over $2.4 billion dollars a year for the past decade to increase capacity. Where it was not economical they found other solutions such as directional running.
All that "weaving" was not possible a decade ago on UP's E/W main though Iowa. But with more CTC islands, and high speed crossovers, you can do just about anything you want to keep trains moving.
In order to pay back that money invested, they must increase traffic, and do so as reliably as possible. In order to do that, new ways of doing things have occurred. Although nothing is foolproof, things sure are running better and more orderly than in the past.
A railroad must serve many masters as so to speak. Where I am, there is no intermodal at all (There could be, but to be honest, the corridor is too short to be competitive). But, we move our share of products from our customers. Our traffic has to mix in with other units such as coal for Utilities, grain for export, wind turbines, fertilizer, petrochemicals, frac sand, and manifest. Yes, and ethanol.
But I watch the numbers regularly. They do not miss by much time wise except in a very few areas. The customers targets are met. A ten day round trip to the East Coast or Texas and back is the norm, and the customer expects it. 9 times out of 10 they get it. Of those failures, it is a 50/50 split between the industry and the carrier. The car utilization, which the customer demands as he is paying for them, is key. Thus we keep a close eye on it.
And by the way, railroads are for-profit carriers. So we do things for that reason, to make money. My pay check depends upon our being profitable. The managers above me are tasked to make that happen, and thus are rewarded. There is a long chain of command, along with other departments who plan all this stuff. If there was a reasonable idea such as this 50 car train from Germany, don't you think they know about it? The first, and most important question out of the mouth of the CEO, what is the payback? What is the return? Will it fit into our current infrastructure and other customers?
Sure as I am breathing, there is no way they will change the whole system for just one segment(19%) of traffic! Sure, that segment gets respect as they handled 3.1 million lifts in 2009 (of which, 49% was domestic, and 51% was Imports). But not at a risk to the other 81% of your business. They have to fit in.
Take into consideration the whole picture, not just one small segment of it.
Mr. chance,
your goals are admirable for a more rail-dependent world. But a quick question: why the beamer system? If you wanted to capture short haul, why not just build small intermodal yards using current technology? Put a track or 2 in the pavement, but 2 packers, and go to town. Yeah, some of the intermodal cars are getting a little old, but they are still good to go. I don't really see the need to change the fundamentals of the system. why add racks to the system? seems like extra weight that isn't needed. Seems more economical to be able to plop the trailer right onto the railcar. (or bogies, as in the triple clown option).
With the economy, truck drivers are desperate for work, so unless something changes, the RRs are not going to be able to compete in the short haul division.
I am an early adopter of new technology. I had a home computer before the IBM PC was introduced, I was one of the first professional photographers in town to embrace digital. I already have a 3D television.
That said, I do not see any advantage to this system over the current container system in which the transportation infrastructure is heavily invested. The equipment needed to move the pallets would be expensive, rail cars and pallets would need to be designed, built and maintained. Pallets would need to be staged and stored. Train capacity would be reduced. There is efficiency in simplicity and standardization.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but it seems to me that if the goal is to speed up loading then it would be cheaper and easier to just add a few more devices for moving the existing containers. They already work on ships, trains, and trucks.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Wow! I never would have predicted that posting what was a pretty innocuous article in a weekly news magazine would get such a response. CargoBeamer may or may not be a useful concept here. But it sure seems to have triggered a high level of defensive reactions in the responses posted here, including some misreadings of the article (claims it is only for short haul when the first planned route is 1100 miles long and repeated references to containers when it clearly is designed for trailers). So then the bigger question is why does this idea seem so threatening that the concept must be immediately rejected? Could it be because the idea did not originate in the USA? One would hope not, but some of the negative comments about HSR seem to spring from the same source.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.