So far, I have not heard a convincing reason why this system could not be applied here in the U.S. And the fact that it is not yet applied, does not mean that the rail industry leaders have reviewed and rejected it.
The pallet is not just some extra item that was dreamed up and added without a purpose.
The genius of the pallets is that they provide the ability for instantaneous loading and unloading of the railcars. They also provide the ability for instantaneous lock-down of the load to the railcar.
The pallets need not add any weight to the shipping for this reason: The pallets are a structural element that makes the railcar strong enough to carry the trailer load when the pallet is attached to the railcar. When the pallet is removed from the railcar, the railcar does not have the strength to carry a load, but it does not need it. So you could say that the pallet is a structural element of the railcar that is removable. Likewise the pallet adds structural strength to the trailer so it can be handled by the loading and unloading system.
Therefore a railcar with a pallet need not be any heavier than a conventional railcar that is the same whether running loaded or empty.
And therefore, the fact that this system needs a supply of pallets is hardly a drawback in any way. And, for the most part, pallets will not need to be specially handled to get them to where they are needed, because the normal operation of the system will keep them distributed by the loading and unloading process.
For that matter, this system could be further automated by providing a pallet storage pocket. From that pocket, pallets could be moved to and from each loading/unloading stage as needed. This feature could be entirely automated mechanics just like a vending machine.
One thing to keep in mind is that this Cargo Beamer is intended to address an exploding market of TOFC that results from trying to sweep the highways free of trucks. That is what it is being used for. In the U.S., we have not yet gotten to that point, but the FRA says they intend to take 80% of long haul trucking off of the roads and put it on rails. So that is going to require lots of new rail infrastructure, plus whole new ways of doing things faster.
Seems to me the core concept is that through the pallets, relatively short (~50 car) dedicated consist trains could be run on fixed routes between various end points with a few set out / pick up sidings en route. It would be analogous to a trolley car between two points with stops along the way. The goal would be to reclaim some of the medium haul trailer business from the roads by bypassing yards, blocking, interchange, etc. to give quick, predictable deliveries. As an 80% reduction in highway traffic is a goal, the likely first routes would be those that are heavily congested, such as segments of I 80, I 90, I 94, to name a few. it has nothing to do with the COFC traffic.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Bucyrus:
The system you are describing essentially turns the over the road trailer into a module that can be moved on and off a specialized car. I still don't understand why that is better than the current container system. Does the new system allow for transfer to and from Ships? How is it easier than just putting a container on a well car which can be done with a crane or a modified fork lift?
I am not against change, but it should not be just for change's sake. It should actually be an improvement over the existing system. So what is the improvement here?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
It is not designed to replace the current COFC system, either here or in Europe. It is designed for trailers and reaching segments of that market that are now strictly on the road for various reasons, including. but not limited to price.
My posts were not defensive. Instead, they were examining the realities of what is out there today, and trying to imagine injecting this concept. There is no doubt that a market exists. However, fitting this kind of thing into the existing traffic base, is an examination of reality. As I said, you have to look at the bigger picture, and this concept's impact upon it.
Concepts are neat, until someone has to pay for them.
RRKen: My comment was directed at earlier posts, not your comments which seemed constructive. If none of the players concerned (or in newspeak, stakeholders) want to pay, then I doubt if any concepts ever get implemented. This would need to be mostly, if not 100% corporate, not government endeavor.
Bucyrus One thing to keep in mind is that this Cargo Beamer is intended to address an exploding market of TOFC that results from trying to sweep the highways free of trucks. That is what it is being used for. In the U.S., we have not yet gotten to that point, but the FRA says they intend to take 80% of long haul trucking off of the roads and put it on rails. So that is going to require lots of new rail infrastructure, plus whole new ways of doing things faster.
Are you going to pay the cost of making that happen? What you are relating (not what the article says), will require their own rail lines, free from other traffic. At $2 million per mile, plus at least $3 million per terminal, you better have deep pockets. And don't expect a profit from it. Berift of other traffic, it has to pay the whole cost, including a return on investment.
-You need to realize that there is an IMBALANCE of frieght in certain lanes If you haul certain Trailers into certainj States You KNow your deadheading out with a Flatbed out of South Florida or Southern California. Also Certain areas of Texas are Dead for Dry Van Freight out of there. So Sooner or later your going to have more trailers than Pallets. See what these Idiots that dream this stuff up forget is that OTR driving is not like hauling a Coal Train were you always return back to the Mine. You might have to go 500 miles to GET a load going towards were you want.
RRKen Bucyrus: One thing to keep in mind is that this Cargo Beamer is intended to address an exploding market of TOFC that results from trying to sweep the highways free of trucks. That is what it is being used for. In the U.S., we have not yet gotten to that point, but the FRA says they intend to take 80% of long haul trucking off of the roads and put it on rails. So that is going to require lots of new rail infrastructure, plus whole new ways of doing things faster. Are you going to pay the cost of making that happen?
Bucyrus: One thing to keep in mind is that this Cargo Beamer is intended to address an exploding market of TOFC that results from trying to sweep the highways free of trucks. That is what it is being used for. In the U.S., we have not yet gotten to that point, but the FRA says they intend to take 80% of long haul trucking off of the roads and put it on rails. So that is going to require lots of new rail infrastructure, plus whole new ways of doing things faster.
Are you going to pay the cost of making that happen?
No, that will be public sector financed if the private sector can lay enough golden eggs. It is the public sector that is promoting it. It probably could happen gradually, over time as a purely market driven objective, but the public sector wants it now, and their motive is primarily to benefit the greater good of society by reducing CO2 emissions.
They will also need to electrify all the freight railroads and produce the power from renewable sources in order to close the loop on this CO2 reducing objective. From reading the Cargo Beamer article, I see that there is a fair amount of this same CO2 reducing objective in their rationale, in addition to simply reducing highway gridlock.
edbenton -You need to realize that there is an IMBALANCE of frieght in certain lanes ... ... So Sooner or later your going to have more trailers than Pallets.
-You need to realize that there is an IMBALANCE of frieght in certain lanes ...
... So Sooner or later your going to have more trailers than Pallets.
So you move some pallets around to where they are needed. Why is that a problem?
In any case the system is related in the article seems to be an investment that is privately financed. I do think there needs to be a distinction made between subsidizing operating expenses (an expense) vs capital investments, whatever the source, private or public. Additionally, it isn't necessary to have a dedicated track for the CargoBeamer. It won't have that in Germany, where tracks now are often operated at a much higher capacity than ours are, and with the adoption of ETCS there, PTCS here, capacity can be increased.
schlimm 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.
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.
I see nobody on this thread that has said or implied that. Good ideas (and bad ones) come from all over.
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
I am adding a new feature to the Cargo Beamer concept. It is called the Automatic Pallet Pocket (APP). The pallets would be made stackable if they are not already. Each Beamer hub would have one or more APPs that would each hold say 10 pallets in a stack.
Say the Beamer hub had fifty trailer slots. Some, if not all of these would have had pallets left in them from unloading the last railcars. If incoming trucks happen to need additional pallets before they become available from unloading trains, the extra pallets could be withdrawn from the APP.
Removing pallets from the AAP and placing them at various trailer slots, and vice versa, would be a robotic process. And also, the railcars would be capable of carrying stacks of empty pallets for redistribution to where they are needed.
schlimm ........... 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.
........... 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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
We will see if the idea catches on even in Europe. One concept that the pro-beamer people seem to have trouble with is that a 50 platform Beamer train takes up as much track capacity as a 8,000 ft. long doublestack train with much more carrying capacity. When capacity is tight the companies can and will drive off the least remunerative freight. The reason that companies such as JB Hunt, Schneider National, and the others are converting to containers, is the price. The price to ship a container from LA to Chicago is less than the cost of an equivalent trailer. In most markets right now, track capacity is a more important driver in the cost equation, rather than wear and tear from weight.
Even in Europe the Beamer concept is at best likely to be a niche product, while many road hauliers use trailers, at least as many use Swapbodies, a light weight non-stackable container. Swapbodies are readily bottom lifted.
European Swapbody
Note the Swapbody loaded on a full trailer. Likely the truck pulling it has another on its back.
BTW how is the train going to operate across the break of gauge between Poland (std gauge) and Latvia (5ft. gauge)? Unload all the pallets and reload?
Bucyrus edbenton: -You need to realize that there is an IMBALANCE of frieght in certain lanes ... ... So Sooner or later your going to have more trailers than Pallets. So you move some pallets around to where they are needed. Why is that a problem?
edbenton: -You need to realize that there is an IMBALANCE of frieght in certain lanes ... ... So Sooner or later your going to have more trailers than Pallets.
If memory serves some states have trailer length restrictions, some states will not accept certain types of trailers. For example the Michigan B Trains cannot go into say.. New Jersey (Or really much outside their own territory)
Indiana has a Single State Permit and Vermont had bans on 53 foot trailers without a permit. I have gotten a ticket or two and hated to haul a 53 footer with that big "53" painted on the sides and nose of said trailer for that reason.
Some Places wont accept Trailers over 96 inches wide and I think there are those at 104? and some very special wide loads.
There is definately a imbalance of freight. For example... Meat rolls ease and west from Garden City, Dumas, Dodge City and Liberal and so forth to both coasts. Just try getting freight right back to these little tiny meat towns.
I have about exhausted useful input because I have been retired out of trucking for so long I am beginning to forget half the stuff I have learned through experience.
Bucyrus No, that will be public sector financed if the private sector can lay enough golden eggs. It is the public sector that is promoting it. It probably could happen gradually, over time as a purely market driven objective, but the public sector wants it now, and their motive is primarily to benefit the greater good of society by reducing CO2 emissions. They will also need to electrify all the freight railroads and produce the power from renewable sources in order to close the loop on this CO2 reducing objective. From reading the Cargo Beamer article, I see that there is a fair amount of this same CO2 reducing objective in their rationale, in addition to simply reducing highway gridlock.
Last I looked, every segment of Government, from Federal to State, County, Municipal, and Township, is short of money. If you thought this theory was high risk for private companies, Government should be the last entity to experiment with it.
I am not going to debate why we must reduce CO². Needless to say the Europeans have made this a religion. If you like that kind of thinking, move there! Reducing congestion on our roads is a noble effort, but forcing the public to pay for it, when they did not cause it, just aint right.
I believe Al Kalmbach was right in 1944. We are a nation without a transportation policy. We are also a nation who allows people to make a profit using taxpayers wages, but with no return on that investment back to the tax payers (but they keep profit). Not only that, but to allow other subsidized modes to compete with a private enterprise, which was not. That was not right then, and it is not right today.
Again, if private enterprise is not willing to invest, it must be because it is a dog. Don't be salivating over what is in my wallet to pay for this theory.
Well, I see this is turning political, so I'm outta here.
Phoebe Vet Well, I see this is turning political, so I'm outta here.
Is there a reason why you ALWAYS have to announce that you are leaving.? If you don't want to participate, then don't post.
schlimm In any case the system is related in the article seems to be an investment that is privately financed. I do think there needs to be a distinction made between subsidizing operating expenses (an expense) vs capital investments, whatever the source, private or public. Additionally, it isn't necessary to have a dedicated track for the CargoBeamer. It won't have that in Germany, where tracks now are often operated at a much higher capacity than ours are, and with the adoption of ETCS there, PTCS here, capacity can be increased.
You might want to ask the carriers about how PTC will increase capacity. They say the opposite. Be that as it may, even on small corridors, this idea of only 50 cars, and running two and fro, and working en-route, will take a large chunk of capacity. You try it on something like the UP E/W main, forget it. some parts of it in IL are hard to manage now. Imagine adding all those extra short trains? Bah!
There is nothing political in what I said. And since such views have in the past been published in Trains, by their editors and publishers, I felt no need to ask permission.
RRKen Phoebe Vet: Well, I see this is turning political, so I'm outta here. There is nothing political in what I said. And since such views have in the past been published in Trains, by their editors and publishers, I felt no need to ask permission.
Phoebe Vet: Well, I see this is turning political, so I'm outta here.
No worries Ken. Some of these "Ivory Tower Types" posting here genuinely believe they know everything.
Murray No worries Ken. Some of these "Ivory Tower Types" posting here genuinely believe they know everything.
Except, they do not occupy the Irory Towers that count the most, where the checks are signed.
RRKen Murray: No worries Ken. Some of these "Ivory Tower Types" posting here genuinely believe they know everything. Except, they do not occupy the Irory Towers that count the most, where the checks are signed.
Murray: No worries Ken. Some of these "Ivory Tower Types" posting here genuinely believe they know everything.
Well I guess some people need a hobby.
RRKen Bucyrus: No, that will be public sector financed if the private sector can lay enough golden eggs. It is the public sector that is promoting it. It probably could happen gradually, over time as a purely market driven objective, but the public sector wants it now, and their motive is primarily to benefit the greater good of society by reducing CO2 emissions. They will also need to electrify all the freight railroads and produce the power from renewable sources in order to close the loop on this CO2 reducing objective. From reading the Cargo Beamer article, I see that there is a fair amount of this same CO2 reducing objective in their rationale, in addition to simply reducing highway gridlock. Last I looked, every segment of Government, from Federal to State, County, Municipal, and Township, is short of money. If you thought this theory was high risk for private companies, Government should be the last entity to experiment with it. I am not going to debate why we must reduce CO². Needless to say the Europeans have made this a religion. If you like that kind of thinking, move there! Reducing congestion on our roads is a noble effort, but forcing the public to pay for it, when they did not cause it, just aint right. I believe Al Kalmbach was right in 1944. We are a nation without a transportation policy. We are also a nation who allows people to make a profit using taxpayers wages, but with no return on that investment back to the tax payers (but they keep profit). Not only that, but to allow other subsidized modes to compete with a private enterprise, which was not. That was not right then, and it is not right today. Again, if private enterprise is not willing to invest, it must be because it is a dog. Don't be salivating over what is in my wallet to pay for this theory.
Bucyrus: No, that will be public sector financed if the private sector can lay enough golden eggs. It is the public sector that is promoting it. It probably could happen gradually, over time as a purely market driven objective, but the public sector wants it now, and their motive is primarily to benefit the greater good of society by reducing CO2 emissions. They will also need to electrify all the freight railroads and produce the power from renewable sources in order to close the loop on this CO2 reducing objective. From reading the Cargo Beamer article, I see that there is a fair amount of this same CO2 reducing objective in their rationale, in addition to simply reducing highway gridlock.
Oh I agree with you 100% on all of that. I don’t believe CO2 is a problem. I don’t believe that manmade CO2 is changing the climate. But this was the point I was making:
Perhaps more radical concepts such as Cargo Beamer are needed to sweep truck traffic off of the highways in Europe, and we don’t need it here because we don’t have that highway traffic problem here. However, our FRA does happen to want to sweep truck traffic off of our highways on a massive scale that perhaps will justify more radical concepts for truck/rail operations here. Unlike the European objective of getting trucks off of highways for capacity issues, however, the FRA wants to get trucks off of our highways to reduce CO2 emissions.
When I mentioned that the FRA’s objective was to get 80% of long haul trucking off of our highways and onto rail, you asked me who would pay for that. And I said that it would be the public sector if the private sector can lay enough golden eggs.
It would, of course be a public sector endeavor, because there is no private sector market for getting rid of CO2. But don’t misunderstand me. I am not advocating this. This would be half way to nationalizing our railroads. And I agree with you about the shortage of funds. I think the public sector is becoming so greedy that it is killing the golden goose of the private sector. So, I don’t think this should happen.
Anything can be done if sufficient money is thrown at a problem.
But now I am re thinking my position on this technology.
We are a Nation that has lost it's compass and I suppose that anyone who sits in the so called "Ivory Tower" and has the power would also have mountains of cash hoarded away against a uncertain future.
You cannot hardly get spending now, why try? We can use this time to evaluate possibilities.
I see that this thread has predictably drifted rather far away from the article. Not about government funding, and only somewhat about CO2. Mostly it seemed to be a concept to reduce highway congestion and divert that business to the rails. But I guess in the minds of many here our railroads have all the business they can handle. Only time (and possibly Mr. Buffett) will tell about that.
If every EXISTING mainline has a second level BUILT above it like a double stacked highway bridge or something then we can run more trains in the same space. Basically doubling the capacity.
The problem is money, manpower, and the will to make it happen.
I have advocated in the past to raise railroads high enough before reaching a grade crossing so that no one should ever lose a life in car vs train because there will never be a physical interaction between road vehicle and rail vehicle.
Then again maybe as a Nation, we have lost the ability and the stamina the previous Generations have had to dream big and work hard to make it happen. We have gotten stagnation.
Buffett will not have sufficent years in this life time to see any improvements in the United States. Our children has never known rail travel and will not even consider railroads a vital part of the Nation when they grow up and become our Captains of Industry, Political leaders and those who have power to save or spend to make things happen for better or worse.
It must be easier for Germany to identify a issue and make something to fix the issue, perhaps they are a smaller Nation and dont require as much oversight to actually see an issue on the National Level.
If somehow the United States is all broken up into a loose collection of Nations made out of each of the 48 states, you can bet you will see which state produces and which state needs. Only now they would be nations trading with nations all right here. Not just 48 states wrestling with Uncle Sam.
Why eliminate grade crossings? Because a few idiots can't stay off the tracks? The beauty of a rail system is that is can be compatible with roads and the like.
I lost you with your nation rant, unfortunately. I can't make heads or tales out of it. Sounds like you want a new Articles of Confederation written... that didn't go too well the first time.
Zugman: Why eliminate grade crossings? Because a few idiots can't stay off the tracks?
You apparently are either incapable of rationally arguing your point without diverting the discussion so when all else fails you revert to inconsistent sadism. When someone in a car, on foot or whatever gets in the way of a train, why it's party time, Darwin Awards, etc. But when a railroader is killed or loses an arm, etc., it's a big tragedy. One would think being professionals they would be more able to avoid the danger than mere civilians. The tragedy is that we as a nation cannot make the rails safer for everyone.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.