Why isn't RoadRailer more widely used?

[SALfan]

I'd like to hear your thoughts. To me, RR is such a good idea that I thought by now they would be in much wider use. I know the trailers are heavier than regular highway trailers, which would make them less useful for loads that "weigh out" rather than "cube out". Are the RR trailers significantly more expensive than regular trailers? Any ideas welcome.

[Overmod]

At least two recent threads, within the past 5 days or so, have taken this up in some detail. Look at the 'bimodal' and 'derailment in Muncie' threads on these forums.

Trailers are more expensive and specialized, and yes, have higher tare weight, but this may not be as significant where there are perceived operational advantages (cf. Triple Crown)

A significant factor appears to be the absence of effective, schedulable backhaul for train operation. My own opinion is that RoadRailer COFC might be an alternative, but the infrastructure and marketing for this doesn't exist (and would be costly to develop) -- in addition, container shipping lines often mandate only the use of their own underframes for road moves, which substantially hampers full equipment utilization for backhauls.

Long trains of RoadRailers, particularly those with empties in the 'middle' of the train, are more prone to stringline derailments than conventional equipment (gee whiz, stuff from the 19th Century about minimum equipment weight SHOULD affect modern railroad rules and regulations in some cases, it would seem!)

They do restrict safe movement speeds for most traffic in the NEC (recent comment from somebody in a position to know, absolute limit 90mph where even commuter trains get well over 100mph).

I haven't seen dynamic-stability data for the 'modern' version (with full 4-wheel railroad trucks 'articulated' between the vans, but would think that the 40-mph restriction on 'older' RoadRailers running 'in reverse' no longer strictly applies. However, there are going to be issues with how 'balancing moves' with those trucks are conducted... shades of Flexi-Van bogies, but on the rail side this time!

See the threads for more.

[Modelcar]

....On the busy side...Through here in Muncie, In. NS runs a daily train south with auto parts [TripleCrown], and now seems to be rather busy. As noted above we had a derailment here of that train this past Friday morning but it was cleaned up and track opened in 7 hrs. or so and traffic resumed. That train had 135 trailers and I happened to catch the one a day before at a crossing and it seemed to have well over a hundred units on it...all though I did not count the exact numbers. So business seems to be doing rather well for that system through here. There are other routes and one being east I believe across Ohio and through Pennsylvania [on old Pennsylvana main line], but I don't know where it terminates.

[DSchmitt]

They are a compromise. They aren't as efficient on the highway as a trailer. They aren't as efficient on the rails as a railroad car.

They are a great sight on the rails.

Actually I thin there is a place for them if the utilization problems can be solved. More flexibility in routing might help.

[Modelcar]

....They sure have a sizable amount less dead weight to haul to their destination.

[Anonymous]

I think one of the other posts regarding this subject hit the nail on the head: RoadRailers cannot be triangulated, they can only run in back and forth lanes. It is somewhat ironic in that the technological move from the frame-mounted rail wheels to the separate bogey sets, although it solved the unnecessary highway tare weight problems, also eliminated the hauling flexibility of the concept.

With the improved technologies for making lighter yet stronger composites, I wonder if anyone will try to develop a next generation "retro"-style RoadRailer, with the rail wheels put back on the trailer frame to allow for triangulation?

DWS

[Overmod]

Actually, I'm beginning to think that the 'right' solution might be adapting the bogies themselves so they can be run 'coupled' to each other, and then to a train or locomotive in 'typical' RoadRailer fashion, to allow balancing moves. Then increase the pool of bogies to allow some to be kept as 'protection'. (I'm using bogie here to distinguish context clearly from 'truck'... which could be either sense when referring to RoadRailer stuff indiscriminately...)

I also suspect that some form of 'aftermarket' bogie conversion kit, allowing freight trucks from old boxcars to be adapted, might increase the potential bogie pool at very little capital cost.

Might be possible to put some functionality on the bogies in transit (like track-data accelerometer sets) to make the 'non-revenue' balancing moves less of a waste.

[DSchmitt]

The first RoadRailers I ever saw were Schneider National on the pre UP merger Southern Pacific east valley line north of Sacramento. They were coupled to the rear of a train (mainly box cars) and had a single box car with a "Fred" attached coupled behind them. They were a surprize to me, at the time, because I didn't know they existed. They ran 2 or 3 times a week in each direction.

I have a soft spot for orange RoadRailers.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

Actually, I'm beginning to think that the 'right' solution might be adapting the bogies themselves so they can be run 'coupled' to each other, and then to a train or locomotive in 'typical' RoadRailer fashion, to allow balancing moves. Then increase the pool of bogies to allow some to be kept as 'protection'. (I'm using bogie here to distinguish context clearly from 'truck'... which could be either sense when referring to RoadRailer stuff indiscriminately...)

I also suspect that some form of 'aftermarket' bogie conversion kit, allowing freight trucks from old boxcars to be adapted, might increase the potential bogie pool at very little capital cost.

Might be possible to put some functionality on the bogies in transit (like track-data accelerometer sets) to make the 'non-revenue' balancing moves less of a waste.

A few years ago I came up with such an invention to be used with the RailRunner technology. It was simply a bar with a "female" end on both ends. You would simply shove one end into (around?) the facing bogey tongue and then back it into the next empty bogey's tongue to connect to it. It could be stored on either the bogey or the chassis, and was intended for use in transfering empty bogies from one terminal to the other. But since RailRunner still has to catch on, it might be a while before the need for such a contraption arises.

It is interesting that the same cannot be done for the RoadRailer concept, since it's basic connection is one frontal trailer tongue being stuck into another trailer's rear slot, e.g. elephant style, so you wouldn't be able to apply that concept anywhere on the empty bogey.

Which brings me to another question: If one of the RR's went back to having rail wheels attached to the trailer frame, why not replace the tongue and slot connection with simple tight fit retractable couplers?

[daveklepper]

Please do not forget the business angle . Norfolk Southern is essentially in the trucking business with Triple Crown. I still believe Norfolk Southern is the very best run of the "Big Six" (or Big Seven if you want to include KCS, although it also has very good manangement), but let us face it, if you were one of the big truckers would you give NS your piggyback business or CSX? Service and rates being equal of course.

[oltmannd]

I'll think that RoadRailers are the slickest of all the intermodal products out there. They are extremely fuel efficient, don't require large, expensive terminals or fancy lift equipment and are virtually theft proof.

They haven't caught on for several reasons:

1. Cost of equipment - a Roadrailer trailer costs more to buy than a container & chassis or trailer.
2. Unless you can create a nationwide network for Roadrailer in one fell-swoop, low equipment utilization will eat you alive.
3. Railroads are generally not truckload retailers. NS's Triple Crown is a truckload retailer - and competes with truckload carriers - many of whom are big railroad intermodal customers. You have to be careful about competing with some of your best customers......
4. Truckload carriers haven't bough Roadrailer equipment because there is no network of train service to carry them (chicken and egg?)

[AntonioFP45]

I saw a video clip of a Road Railer train hauled by one BNSF GE unit. It was long and running about 60 m.p.h! Very impressive.

NS has a good thing going with the Triple Crown relationship.

Inspite of the costs involved, it seems that this mode has potential worth exploring. With the growing cooperation between the Class 1s and the trucking industry, we shouldn't dismiss this so easily as a limited mode.

[Anonymous]

When he was at Yale, Fred Smith (founder of FedEx) got an F from his professor on his paper describing what was to become Federal Express. Essential to the success of his plan was service to all major cities from day one. And that's what he did.

I think, as was mentioned earlier, if Triple Crown could do the same thing, some of these other issues would lose their significance. I wonder if Fred Smith is keeping an eye on Triple Crown.

[Junctionfan]

Where is this video clip?