American freight trains-59 mph....German Freight Trains-80mph The FRA is FAXing US railroads over.

[Junctionfan]

I don't think Canada's freight could do it unless they started using a large consist of P-42s or F40PHs. I don't think engines for freight service can go beyond 70 or 75mph.

[athelney]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I don't think Canada's freight could do it unless they started using a large consist of P-42s or F40PHs. I don't think engines for freight service can go beyond 70 or 75mph.

Think that is the point - we have to start thinking in terms of faster freight trains - we have to plan for 90mph plus freight now - especially with increasing intermodal traffic . In Canada we have long sections of fairly straight track (except in the west) Now is the time to upgrade to faster track like the Europeans .

[Anonymous]

How heavy are these trains that they can achieve such high speeds

[jeffhergert]

Do the Germans run 16000 ton coal trains at 80MPH? I doubt it.
If we had a government owned, nationalized primarily passenger railroad with some relatively small and light freight trains, we too would probably run 80mph freight trains.
Even when the railroads had 90mph passenger train speeds, most freight trains ran normally in the 40 to 50 mph range.
Jeff

[Junctionfan]

In European countries and in Japan, the lines are electric and so most of thease high-speed freight is electric. You have to keep in mind that thease countries are far smaller than ours and so to electrify our countries would be quite expensive. Some of the existing lines such as the North East Corridor is a start but it will be difficult for the railroads to contiplate undertaking such feat of investment unless the government does some big time investing. I think it will happen sooner or later but for now, trying to get the U.S government in particular to spend alot of money that will benifit the transportation infrustructure and not on frivilous things like missle defence system to protect against non existant ememies who are at peace with you. Lets face it, when it comes to the rails, congress can barely find the interest to fund amtrak never mind something this big; and the Canadian government is no better. If this is to happen we will need to vote in governments who are interested in doing this and we of course as voters of our respected countries, must support the party that will do this other wise the railroads are quite content on using diesels that they have already spent a fortune on.

[Overmod]

It it quite simply unsafe to operate most existing American freight trains at speeds above 80mph without properly-designed automatic train control. (The current acronym is "positive train control", in part intended like the term "MRI" to get around some unpopular connotations that the old 'ATC' has acquired).

The current tests of PTC, in particular the ongoing NAJPTC trials, may produce something suitable for use on freight trains (a very, very different, and more difficult, engineering exercise than PTC on passenger trains). Until then you can expect a hard speed limit below 80mph (as in the current law). I wouldn't sit around waiting for locomotive manufacturers to start designing engines geared for higher freight speeds before then -- regardless of the extent to which they might do that afterward.

I remember that some of the UPS high-speed trials had to be run with borrowed Amtrak Genesis power a few years ago, nothing else around being particularly suitable. I believe it's possible to adapt modern six-axle locomotives to run at higher speeds, particularly those with AC drive... but until there's a hard business case to do that, and equally well-documented system solutions to make that business case profitable, there's no particular point in bandying about proposals to run freight trains at superspeed.

Note that Amtrak could run 100+mph freight in the Corridor (and elsewhere) fairly quickly if that were desirable... either with RoadRailers or with appropriately-suspended 'material' cars. There is little difference between many of the old NEC mail trains and a freight train, technologically speaking (although there may be worlds of difference in maintenance quality and detail design of actual equipment)

The issue is entirely about first inducing and then satisfying demand for service that uses those speeds. Service that pays for them.

[jeaton]

There are at least three things involved, money, money and money, and possibly a fourth- no money.

Higher speed trains require more horse power on the point-more locomotievs.

Higher speeds increase the gallons per mile consumed for a train.

Higher speeds generally require tighter tolerances for track.

The fourth item. Faster train speeds don't necessarily equate to a reduction in door to door transit time, or at least a reduction in time that is worth any more money than is being paid for service at existing levels.

Dealing with trains operating at different speeds is a well defined problem. I suspect that the conventional solution of adding passing sidings or double tracking with CTC is quite a bit less expensive than running freight trains faster to keep them out of the way of the occasional passenger.

[mudchicken]

There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it!

[athelney]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it!

What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains .

[pat390]

Leave it to the Germans to brag AGAIN about their superiour transportation system, but do they have ove 100000 ton freights on a regular baisis? America is probably slower because we produce much more heavy raw materials

[Junctionfan]

What was this intermodal bridge I heard CN was supposed to get out of buying BC Rail and building a new port possibly?

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I think it will happen sooner or later but for now, trying to get the U.S government in particular to spend alot of money that will benifit the transportation infrustructure and not on frivilous things like missle defence system to protect against non existant ememies who are at peace with you.

You forgot North Korea. Also, most people did not expect what happened on September 11, 2001 to happen, maybe they should have but they didn't.

[Junctionfan]

North Korea will not doing anything because China won't let them and neither will the Russians. Long before the North Koreans could lauch anything anyways, an interceptor fighter from Okinawa could be scrambled to destroy the missile. Like I said, it is inconsievable that China would allow such an attack because any nuclear attack against the U.S would be met with nuclear retaliation and China is too close to North Korea. Why do you think the Soviet Union didn't attack with those weapons? September 11th was carried out by a group of religious fanatics without a country to loose. The only reason why the Taliban doubted the U.S resolve was because they were part of the same Clique. North Korea has an organized government that is interested in its image and is to the degree under China's thumb. China won't do anything unless seriously provoked because they don't like war because they are more interested in fixing their land and perfecting it. China knows that the best way to attack the U.S is engage it through Commerce hence why alot of jobs are going to China-Made in China and now that they have Hong Kong which was left generally non-communist, they are very serious in growing their economy. The age of possible World War is dying and I would say that only the middle eastern countries not allied with the U.S would be a threat. I would say right now the real threat will be Iran since they are the ones developing nukes and is ruled by a religious leader-Iatola, which is openly aggressive against the U.S

[athelney]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

What was this intermodal bridge I heard CN was supposed to get out of buying BC Rail and building a new port possibly?

The port is Prince Rupert in northen BC - CN can pick up containers there and run them to Chicago , apparently it is closer by a day than the lower BC and US ports . The port has to be upgraded so this is an ongoing thing .

[Anonymous]

It get's back to the old idea a decade ago (I'm not sure if it was part of the failed SP-SF merger, or an outgrowth of the UP-SP merger) that if a RR has two separate (redundant) mainlines from point A to point B, that you primp one for the lighter higher speed intermodal/time freight traffic and buttress the other for the slower heavy drag freights/unit trains. It was something like making the Sunset Route the faster route and the Overland Route the slower line. It makes sense to do it this way rather than running both kinds of freight on both lines because you can then do things like superelevating the curves on the faster line to increase train speed.

I think there are a number of redundant lines in the U.S. in which this philosophy can be implemented. You run the 10,000 to 15,000 ton coal and grain trains over one line and the 3,000 ton intermodals over the other, that way the higher speeds on the latter do not exasterbate track maintenance since the average tons per axle are much lower. In other words, it can be done if the business exists to justify the effort.

[railman]

Remember the Santa Fe used to run freights really fast in the west back in the 40's...but if it doesn't pay to run these drag freights at higher speeds than the status quo, railroads won't do it.

Course, US Passenger trains used to do pretty good time too, but that's a subject in itself...

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

North Korea will not doing anything because China won't let them and neither will the Russians. Long before the North Koreans could lauch anything anyways, an interceptor fighter from Okinawa could be scrambled to destroy the missile. Like I said, it is inconsievable that China would allow such an attack because any nuclear attack against the U.S would be met with nuclear retaliation and China is too close to North Korea. Why do you think the Soviet Union didn't attack with those weapons? September 11th was carried out by a group of religious fanatics without a country to loose. The only reason why the Taliban doubted the U.S resolve was because they were part of the same Clique. North Korea has an organized government that is interested in its image and is to the degree under China's thumb. China won't do anything unless seriously provoked because they don't like war because they are more interested in fixing their land and perfecting it. China knows that the best way to attack the U.S is engage it through Commerce hence why alot of jobs are going to China-Made in China and now that they have Hong Kong which was left generally non-communist, they are very serious in growing their economy. The age of possible World War is dying and I would say that only the middle eastern countries not allied with the U.S would be a threat. I would say right now the real threat will be Iran since they are the ones developing nukes and is ruled by a religious leader-Iatola, which is openly aggressive against the U.S

I agree that North Korea probably will not attack. However, it is possible. Also, there is no way to make sure that Iran never gets ICBMs. I would rather have a missle defense ready for them in case they are bought or developed rather than trying to develop one then. Finally, world politics is not a static thing. What is the case now probably will not be in 'x' number of years.

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill
There are no Asia-Europe land-bridge trains between Asia and Europe via U.S. railroads <snip> Containers between Asia and Europe move via the Suez Canal, not via the U.S.

Were there land-bridge trains until recently? I distinctly recall reading in a rail publication that there were some trains in this service a few years ago. One of the issues the article discussed was the limited ability of US railroads to increase capacity. There was discussion of enlarging Panama Canal to allow larger container ships and therefore bypass the US rail routes.

I have not heard any more on this [expanding the canal] beyond that one article, so it could have been written off as "not feasible/too expensive"

[ericsp]

I can't resist it anymore. Where is the FRA faxing railroads to? My apologies, but I couldn't resist.

[daveklepper]

What about the economies of better utilization of crews and equipment with higher speeds? As far as terminal delays, note the greater and greater percentage of point to point unit train operations. As far as electrification, let us get MIT to do some repentance for that fuel cell nonsense and do an economic study on if and why the power companies should invest in stringing the catenary and adding plant capacity and then charge the RR on the Killowatt hour basis. It would probably make economic sense Omaha - Ogden and Harrisburg -Pittsburgh, for example. Also increase capacity.

Fuel cell nonsense. Hydrogen is not an unlimited source of energy. It is an energy carrier. It takes more energy to make the Hydrogen than you can get out of it. All the research can do is make it more efficient than a battery or flywheel . But not an electric wire.

[Junctionfan]

I don't think Iran will get the ICBM at all because if the U.S does attack Iran, Isreal will. I also have a strange feeling that India won't let Iran have them have it either. Although Pakistan and Indian hate each other, they both know that a nuclear battle would do more harm than good. India has a president and Pakistan has a military like government. Iran how ever concerns me because the whole suicide bombing thing that thease Muslim extremest governments, supposedly is a big thing with Allah. I would have to read the Kuran on that because it sound like a twist of words to me. At any rate that is how they contrue their beliefs and so why wouldn't they nuke someone. If they got nuked than they go to Allah so you can see why we need to me more concerned with Iran than with North Korea. If the U.N is not going to do their job, than the U.S and Isreal who would also be on Iran's hit list; will have no choice but to attack long before a missle system would be needed. Besides why do we need another missle defence system? What's wrong with NORAD?

[Grinandbearit]

Most CN locomotives are geared for 65 mph or less, so no 90 mph trains up here. Anyway some of the kickers we see on freights would not stay on the tracks at that speed.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

By the way, 90-mph freights weren't common anywhere in North America, ever, anywhere. Not hauling grain, lumber, coal, and canned goods! Nor were 40-mph or 50-mph freights common in the steam era, not if you're talking average speeds. Even a coal train runs 40-mph downhill today.

It's the average freight train speed that matters. Whatever it does on a one-mile tangent downhill is wiped out by the average. Average freight train speeds have been in the 25-mph range since the 1940s. If you go back to the 1900-1920 era, the paradigm was to load every train to one pound less than the poor locomotive would stall with on the subdivision's ruling grade, thus the preponderance of small-drivered locomotives in that era.

I disagree. Intermodal's Bust one by us when were moving at around 65-70 MPH.

I know on the Island of montreal it is 65 MPH max for freight, 35 MPH for hazardous material trains- (montreal City bylaw) , but once off the island the speed increases... I'm sure it's not 90 MPH- But it is 75, 80 MPH, it must be- Otherwise we have a lot of trains breaking the rules.

Passenger trains can move upwards of 110-115 MPH on and off the island, Unless otherwise stated, around curves etc...

[oltmannd]

I'll add just one more item:

Welded rail + tangent track + 3 pc frt truck (and 1:20 tread taper) + high speed = truck hunting = derailment!

You can sneak up on 80 mph with some intermodal equipment, but, if you want to go faster than that, you start needing some better suspension. Amtrak's Roadrailers use swing motion trucks, for example. For "regular" freight cars, the truck hunting threshold speed is much lower - much past 60 and you're looking for trouble. Conrail once tried what was really a pretty slick move - moving empty mill gons back from Chicago to Buffalo on the head end of TV11. It saved about two day's transit. Unfortunately, the empty mill gons with worn wheels would become unstable at speeds just over 50 mph and there was a large derailment just east of Cleveland.

In the jointed rail days, truck hunting wasn't a problem because the slight irregularities at the joints stopped the instability from "building up".

[Grinandbearit]

Kevin ! Even though the CPs AC4400CW have 75 mph gearing, I doubt very much if they get up to that speed, and Vias F40s have max gearing for 95mph and while P42s are 110mph ,they never will attain that on CN track with even with the banking on the LRC cars.

[sebamat]

A few comments on European RR (I am describing what is going on in front of my office…the main north south route trough the alps, Gotthard)

- speed: indeed there is a lot of freight trains making over 100km/h (>63 mph), they are then quite short, even for European standards, but frequent (over 20/day). They are premium freight, like intermodal or containers. Having often quite a lot of empty cars, it seems that they are scheduled, and they leave independently from the percentage of loaded cars.
Wasn’t the idea ‘frequent, fast trains’ the strategy of the Nickel plate as opposite of the slow ‘drags’ of competitors?

- max tonnage : in Europe there are no 10 000 tons trains, mostly because there is no use for them, and thus the necessary technology was not developed (e.g. stronger coupling). That because there is a network of channels and rivers covering a good part of central Europe where the ‘bulk’ stuff like coal can be moved a lot cheaper that by train (and in Europe there are not so much coal powered power stations). Also to wait until you have a 10 000 ton trains for one destination would take too much time. Distances are shorter, users more spread out and travel time is measured in hours, not days. Waiting days&days to put toghether a 100+ cars train for a destination, beside for few commodities, would be not acceptable.

sebastiano

[sebamat]

A few comments on European RR (I am describing what is going on in front of my office…the main north south route trough the alps, Gotthard)

- speed: indeed there is a lot of freight trains making over 100km/h (>63 mph), they are then quite short, even for European standards, but frequent (over 20/day). They are premium freight, like intermodal or containers. Having often quite a lot of empty cars, it seems that they are scheduled, and they leave independently from the percentage of loaded cars.
Wasn’t the idea ‘frequent, fast trains’ the strategy of the Nickel plate as opposite of the slow ‘drags’ of competitors?

- max tonnage : in Europe there are no 10 000 tons trains, mostly because there is no use for them, and thus the necessary technology was not developed (e.g. stronger coupling). That because there is a network of channels and rivers covering a good part of central Europe where the ‘bulk’ stuff like coal can be moved a lot cheaper that by train (and in Europe there are not so much coal powered power stations). Also to wait until you have a 10 000 ton trains for one destination would take too much time. Distances are shorter, users more spread out and travel time is measured in hours, not days. Waiting days&days to put toghether a 100+ cars train for a destination, beside for few commodities, would be not acceptable.

sebastiano

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by smattei


A few comments on European RR (I am describing what is going on in front of my office…the main north south route trough the alps, Gotthard)

- speed: indeed there is a lot of freight trains making over 100km/h (>63 mph), they are then quite short, even for European standards, but frequent (over 20/day). They are premium freight, like intermodal or containers. Having often quite a lot of empty cars, it seems that they are scheduled, and they leave independently from the percentage of loaded cars.
Wasn’t the idea ‘frequent, fast trains’ the strategy of the Nickel plate as opposite of the slow ‘drags’ of competitors?

- max tonnage : in Europe there are no 10 000 tons trains, mostly because there is no use for them, and thus the necessary technology was not developed (e.g. stronger coupling). That because there is a network of channels and rivers covering a good part of central Europe where the ‘bulk’ stuff like coal can be moved a lot cheaper that by train (and in Europe there are not so much coal powered power stations). Also to wait until you have a 10 000 ton trains for one destination would take too much time. Distances are shorter, users more spread out and travel time is measured in hours, not days. Waiting days&days to put toghether a 100+ cars train for a destination, beside for few commodities, would be not acceptable.

sebastiano

Adding to what Sebastiano said, I remember reading that trailing loads on the SBB up the north and south ramps of the Gotthard are limited to 800 tonnes (1 tonne = 1 metric ton = ca. 1.1 US tons). This was about 20 years ago when standard power on freights was an Re6/6 (B+B+B). These locomotives are good for about 10,000 HP. They were generally assisted by a pair of Re 4/4's cut in ahead of the point where the 800 tonne trailing load limit would be exceeded. Freights were generally run at about 80 KPH (50 mph) which is about the limit anyhow, due to curvature. You gotta remember guys, the ruling grade on the Gotthard is 2.7%, IIRC. 50 MPH up THAT takes some serious horsepower.

Sebastiano, I envy you. Riding the Gotthard line from Luzern to Milano is one of my favorite memories of Europe. Having that parade of trains in front of you on a daily basis, the question I must ask is: how do you get any work done? [:D]

Andre

[TH&B]

The biggest German freights are around 6000ton trains and are limited to 80km ((50mph)) tops when loaded. When these unit trains are empty they are allowed 120km ((75mph)), and this is realy only to get out of the path of passenger trains, there is no ecconmy otherwise to go so fast and when loaded they cannot exede the 50mph. The average speeds are low because they spend alot of time in the hole waiting for passenger traffic to pass.
Other small loaded coal trains in Briton of about 1500 tons are also alowed 75mph but the economy in it again is to try to keep the passenger lines clear. You could not run the bulk freight trains at these speeds economicaly on their own. The European governments pay for the cost differences.
Canada never ran any freights legaly at 90mph that I ever heard of.
But wait !! USA does have high speed freight ..... 110mph !!!! Amtrak runs a short train of loaded boxcars only from Springfeild to DC on the NEC. Pulled by an electric... I beleive they call it train 13, and it is very short in consist but has no passenger traffic, so isn't this a "hi speed freight" ?! Correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Anonymous]

The thing here is that even if freight trains ran at high speed it wont help if it has to sit at a yard being sorted and resorted for up to 48hours or more and have to stop at at least 5 classification yards on its way to the customers siding. You can get transit times from BNSFs website and intermodal transit times from skedz.com. 14-15 days coast to coast for a boxcar.....5-8 days for a COFC.
It takes 6 to 8 hours to load a Pig train.

[Anonymous]

its not that US RRs cant do more then 59 its that the FRA wont let them exeed that limit

[Junctionfan]

Why the hell does it take that long. How long does it take to forklift a trailer on to an intermodal car? It must be because they are waiting for transfers from another train.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Why the hell does it take that long. How long does it take to forklift a trailer on to an intermodal car? It must be because they are waiting for transfers from another train.

It takes about 3 minutes to load a container on a stack car, but:

1. First you have to spot the track with empites
2. Then, you have to spot the containers to be loaded
3. After they're loaded, you may have to pull the track so you can set some more empties.
4. Then, you have to inspect the train
5. Finally, you have to put the power on, pump up the air, and do an air test

NOW, you can depart.

Typically, a RR will want a load at least 2 hrs prior to dept. and will make a load available 2 hrs after arrival (unless you company initials are UPS)

[Junctionfan]

Can't it be done at the same time? Sounds like there needs to be 1940 style full service gas station like operation.

[TH&B]

You try to load 100+ container trains quick. Try not to employ so many people that you loose your edge. You could of course run 10 trains of about 10 containers each in succession or even 100 trucks. Wich ever is economical.
Some crowded intermodal terminlals are quite fast due to lack of space but it would be better if they had the space to load and unload more efficiently.

[Junctionfan]

Don't they seperate containers and trailers before Chicago. If you only load containers on certain designated well cars, than it would be easier for Chicago to just simply hump the well cars. Seperated the Los Angelas bound cars from the Seatle bound cars. Is there any way that the railroads could do that quickly?

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I don't think Iran will get the ICBM at all because if the U.S does attack Iran, Isreal will. I also have a strange feeling that India won't let Iran have them have it either. Although Pakistan and Indian hate each other, they both know that a nuclear battle would do more harm than good. India has a president and Pakistan has a military like government. Iran how ever concerns me because the whole suicide bombing thing that thease Muslim extremest governments, supposedly is a big thing with Allah. I would have to read the Kuran on that because it sound like a twist of words to me. At any rate that is how they contrue their beliefs and so why wouldn't they nuke someone. If they got nuked than they go to Allah so you can see why we need to me more concerned with Iran than with North Korea. If the U.N is not going to do their job, than the U.S and Isreal who would also be on Iran's hit list; will have no choice but to attack long before a missle system would be needed. Besides why do we need another missle defence system? What's wrong with NORAD?

NORAD cannot shoot down any missile. It is a warning system only. The best it can do is tell Air Combat Pacific (USAF), Pacific Air Forces (USAF), or the Navy and hope someone can get lucky and do something. By that time it would be too late. Also, I forgot to mention that presently, there are no air interceptor missiles (AIM) that can be depended upon shoot down another missile. We have no missile defense system currently.

How will India keep Iran from getting or developing ICBMs?

I am not willing to just sit around and hope the best case happens. It is better to be prepared than to be caught off guard.

[Junctionfan]

What happened to all the systems that were there during the cold war? What about the SDI defence systems that were supposedly built to stop the Soviet's missles? I was certain that they installed a satelite that sent out a trigger signal that detonated the missle upon entering orbit.

To answer you about India; India has always been a target of terrorist attacks ever since Pakistan separated from India. India will attack Iran if they think that they will supply nukes to the terrorist.

[DSchmitt]

SDI was never really built. The threat that we would build it helped bring down the old Soviet Union. Their enonomy was aready weak because of the inefficiency and mismanagement inherent in a centrally controlled system, and from the burden of their military establishment. . They believed we would build SDI and knew their economy couldn't compete. Gorbachev tried to reform their system and it collasped. Many of the actions and threats from the Soviets after WW2 were because they feared us so they created a buffer of client states around themselves. Regan extended the hand of friendship and convinced Gorbachev that he meant it. They worked together to end the Cold War. Unlike many of the enemys we face today, they leaders of the Soviet Union were reasonable people.

[Anonymous]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a freight train that has all articulated cars can do the same speed as a passenger train is permited to around curves. I remember reading that somewhere. Whether it was a true statment I'm not sure. I also believe that Santa Fe had or attempted to run fast piggy backs at 79 miles per hour with a few locomotives which were re-geared to achieve the higher speed. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. I'm interested to know. I seem to remember reading something on this.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainfinder22

its not that US RRs cant do more then 59 its that the FRA wont let them exeed that limit

I better tell the hogger today about this 59 mph stuff...we usually go 70 across the Needles Sub to Barstow,California from Needles,Ca.,unless we have a manifest train with emptys,then it's 55 mph.
BNSF Conductor--Needles,California---

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Will the train culture ever truly come into its own? Or will the loose-car culture always prevail?

In 20 years you will not see a boxcar on a major railroad,It's all going intermodal with the big RR,s.
We bring you a container or two,you load it,thus no hump yards needed as they are a hugh waste of space,labor,track,specialized equipment & produce no income whatsoever.It will probably be sooner here on the BNSF transcon.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

For one thing, five-well double-stack cars don't hump properly -- they're too long. Hump retarders only grab two trucks at a time. The technology of a hump yard is inappropriate for the technology of a double-stack car.

You obviously have never worked the Hump as I have...It does not matter how many wheels are being retarded ,as long as the braking force exist to slow the entire car.I have humped many 3 & 5 pak cars,you can stop them dead in their tracks if you need to. I have done that before to keep pigs from striking a slow rolling hazardous tanker. I wi***hat I had attended college and became a writer,then I would know what cannot be done with railcars in a hump yard.----------

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by y-back guy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a freight train that has all articulated cars can do the same speed as a passenger train is permited to around curves. I remember reading that somewhere. Whether it was a true statment I'm not sure. I also believe that Santa Fe had or attempted to run fast piggy backs at 79 miles per hour with a few locomotives which were re-geared to achieve the higher speed. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. I'm interested to know. I seem to remember reading something on this.

You are not far off. A train on the BNSF that is totally articulated cars can run a max of 70 mph,loaded or empty...an empty NON-articulated car will restrict you to 55 in most areas. The locomotives are not geared to run 90 as Amtrack does here in the desert...70 mph ,after that the overspeed alerter goes off and will shut down the train if the engineer does not respond and reduce to 70 mph or below......Santa Fe did have 79 mph Super-c freight service in the late 60's,but running one train so much faster that the others created problems,IE, the slower trains had to be sure to be clear well ahead of the super-c....that basically slowed down the entire railroad down to expedite one train....not a good trade off.....BNSF Conductor.......

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Don't they seperate containers and trailers before Chicago. If you only load containers on certain designated well cars, than it would be easier for Chicago to just simply hump the well cars. Seperated the Los Angelas bound cars from the Seatle bound cars. Is there any way that the railroads could do that quickly?

Steel wheel interchange in Chicago is the holy grail of intermodal operations. There are many high volume lanes that allow thru blocks to be built in the west and these are steel-wheeled across Chicago - a growing trend, in fact. However, there are just too many point pairs with low volume to do a steel wheel interchange with all of them. Another trend has been construction of load centers, where box destinations are mixed and matched between rail cars to get enough volume for a steel wheel interchange. Rutherford on NS does this, taking well cars with mixed destinations from a half dozen eastern terminals and reloads them in solid destination blocks.

Another reason for all the rubber tire interchange in Chicago is IMCs (Intermodal marketing companies) will often handle a transcon load as two separate local trips. For example, to NS, it will look like a Chicago local trip, but the IMC will then dray it across town to BNSF to get it to it's final destination. They do this because sometimes the sum rates for the two "local" trips is cheaper than the thru billed rate.

[Modelcar]

...Even if railroads wanted to run higher speed freights doesn't it require different wheel trucks under the freight cars....? Thought ordinary freight car trucks were limited to lower speed of operation.

[Junctionfan]

I am wondering if it would be easier if the railroads used containers with openings on the sides instead of the back. That way if say Wal-Mart requires a whole bunch of different stuff, you might have a 20 foot container from Hong Kong, a 20 foot container from Seatle and 2 20 foot containers form Los Angelas. Load onto an 89 foot flat car and take it to the Wal-Mart siding and they could unload it themselves. Of course on flats and spine cars would work. I don't see Wal-Mart having much use for containers in well cars.

[TH&B]

Different hump yards are capable of different things. I once worked at one hump that handled only single cars but could handle empty cars in pairs, some hump masters did "illegaly" let larger cuts of emptys go but could get in trouble for it. I later worked for a diferent railroad at a different hump that routinely humps large cuts of cars at a time.

So we can use our imagination and take it a step further and sugest perhaps a more higher tech hump yard with more acurate control of coupling speeds in all weather that would eventualy be able to carfully "hump" even double stacks. Perhaps this would neither be a gravity "hump" nor a very large hump. I see stand alone well cars being built in large numbers now. What's up with that?

[AntonioFP45]

Mudchcken, Jeaton and Mr. Hemphill have pretty much laid it out.

High speed freight service in the U.S, with very few exceptions, would not be overwhelmingly beneficial as nowadays (unfortunately) a lot of lines that were once multi-tracked are now single tracked. A number of yards were either reduced in sized or closed. Freight trains, particularly in the west still "Wait their turn" to enter major yards.

Additionally Uncle Sam doesn't give the Class 1s a lot of incentives to run fast freight anymore. I clearly remember in the 1970s that 70 mph freight runs were still common. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Hemphill, but I read that the Santa Fe Super C running with the cowl locomotives hit between 85 and 90 mph in some stretches in the early 70s.

Cheers!

[Anonymous]

Thank you bnsfmemptm for clarifying that for me.

[Anonymous]

Most freight locomotives are geared for 70-73 mph maximum speeds, and most operating practices limit freight trains to 70mph maximum or less. BNSF did run test UPS "Bullet Trains" with high speed geared units up to 79mph, but UPS didn't want to pay the cost of delays such a fast train causes to other trains, and BNSF has a whole fleet of hot trains that equal or better the fastest schedules on other RRs, so that cost was not inconsequential. UP "bought" the business by offering the service without the premium price; they have less hot traffic to delay and were trying to win points with UPS. Result was UP has been paying UPS to highway haul their loads because they can't handle it (gotta love new twists on old UP slogans LOL), and now UP has canceled the contract for this business they bought from BNSF (and the extreme high speed schedule business will stay on the highway for now since UPS doesn't want to pay BNSF for the premium service).

Super C used to run 90mph in many places, since ATSF had plenty of ATS equipped sections of mainline - and curves superelevated for high speed passenger trains. Today, much of the ATS is gone, and the curves have less elevation as well as the focus is now solidly on freight as opposed to passenger. 79mph is doable if somebody wants to pay the bill. You've got to be impressed with BNSF's ability to run the Bullet Trains fast enough to match the Super C's old Chicago - LA times (UNDER 40 hours!) given the tremendous traffic levels they have today and despite losing some of their top speed capacity, but replacing some of the ability to run at 90mph with more 2 MT/CTC on the "Transcon."

As for Federal Law, without ATS (Automatic Train Stop) or some modern train separation system, maximum authorized speed is 79mph. This by the way has NOTHING to do with "safety" in terms of 80mph or higher needing such safety appliances; it was the government's way of trying to force the RRs into expanding their ATS systems post WWII. The RRs reaction, more often than not, was to simply slow their trains down.

[Anonymous]

Oh, and double stacks and piggybacks aren't supposed to be humped - you're likely to end up with some second layer containers shearing off (held on in most modern doubles stack equipment by nothing but the fasteners used to join them together when stacked on ships)....

[Anonymous]

I have heard of two frieght trains that were probably "fast." The Pacific Fruit Express, which is supposed to be the most profitable unit train ever, and the "Salad Bowl Express."

Does anyone know what the schedule of these trains was and how fast they had to go to make it?

TIA,
Dennis

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Grinandbearit

Kevin ! Even though the CPs AC4400CW have 75 mph gearing, I doubt very much if they get up to that speed, and Vias F40s have max gearing for 95mph and while P42s are 110mph ,they never will attain that on CN track with even with the banking on the LRC cars.

I don't know about that- intermodals really shoot it up off the island of montreal- The Cn detector reports via trains proceeding at 97, 102,, 107, 45.. And thats just yesturday!

CP intermodals have gone 75 MPH- that is the max- and I have seen them do it. Better check the max. Gear ratio speed for those locomotives-

On CP track with our EMD 59PHi We get up to 75, 80-
unless it's around the 55 MPH curve.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Grinandbearit

Kevin ! Even though the CPs AC4400CW have 75 mph gearing, I doubt very much if they get up to that speed, and Vias F40s have max gearing for 95mph and while P42s are 110mph ,they never will attain that on CN track with even with the banking on the LRC cars.

You should take a train from Toronto to Montreal. On the Kingston Subdivision, the train with 2 P-42s and 8 LRCs went over 100mph.

[railman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I'll add just one more item:

Welded rail + tangent track + 3 pc frt truck (and 1:20 tread taper) + high speed = truck hunting = derailment!

You can sneak up on 80 mph with some intermodal equipment, but, if you want to go faster than that, you start needing some better suspension. Amtrak's Roadrailers use swing motion trucks, for example. For "regular" freight cars, the truck hunting threshold speed is much lower - much past 60 and you're looking for trouble. Conrail once tried what was really a pretty slick move - moving empty mill gons back from Chicago to Buffalo on the head end of TV11. It saved about two day's transit. Unfortunately, the empty mill gons with worn wheels would become unstable at speeds just over 50 mph and there was a large derailment just east of Cleveland.

In the jointed rail days, truck hunting wasn't a problem because the slight irregularities at the joints stopped the instability from "building up".

And they called it progress!

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railman

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I'll add just one more item:

Welded rail + tangent track + 3 pc frt truck (and 1:20 tread taper) + high speed = truck hunting = derailment!

You can sneak up on 80 mph with some intermodal equipment, but, if you want to go faster than that, you start needing some better suspension. Amtrak's Roadrailers use swing motion trucks, for example. For "regular" freight cars, the truck hunting threshold speed is much lower - much past 60 and you're looking for trouble. Conrail once tried what was really a pretty slick move - moving empty mill gons back from Chicago to Buffalo on the head end of TV11. It saved about two day's transit. Unfortunately, the empty mill gons with worn wheels would become unstable at speeds just over 50 mph and there was a large derailment just east of Cleveland.

In the jointed rail days, truck hunting wasn't a problem because the slight irregularities at the joints stopped the instability from "building up".

And they called it progress!

Here's another equation:

no diesels + no roller bearings + no welded rail + no CTC = no more railroads left today!

Take any one of the 4 away and railroading as we know it, would be uneconomical.

[Anonymous]

American Railroads can build cars with Aircraft alnummun and contruction. They can use Polumers and light weight trucks to save fuel and increase speed...But the FRA wont let them because of crash standerds that are outdated..

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainfinder22

American Railroads can build cars with Aircraft alnummun and contruction. They can use Polumers and light weight trucks to save fuel and increase speed...But the FRA wont let them because of crash standerds that are outdated..

The people at the FRA are hardly stupid.


As long as you are mixing frt and passenger along the same ROW, it would be a real stretch to call the FRA crash standards "outdated". You can build passenger cars from whatever material you like, they just have to meet the performance standards for buff strength and collision post strength. Those standards have saved a lot of lives over the years, don't dismiss them so easily......


Besides, fuel cost ain't what's killing passenger service. And lack of high speed equipment isn't the problem, either. That stuff is all small potatoes compared to creating high speed routes.

[Anonymous]

The best way to not a crash is to prevent one. CTC and real time dispatching systems using GPS to tell the tower where the trains are at all times means that passenger and freight CAN run together

[Anonymous]

Using CTC and Global Positioning Systems means that Passenger and Freight Can run Together
There was a lot of epermentation in the 60s but everytime the FRA shot them down. Railbuses and RDCs built in Europe cant run here because of the FRA.

[TH&B]

FRA ?
When was the last time a passenger train in the USA crashed and killed 100 people?
When was the last time a passenger train in Europe crashed and killed 100 people?
In Japan ?

[martin.knoepfel]

european freight trains are quite short, because the screw couplers do not allow for heavier trains. otherwise, you have to cut in additional locomotives (radio-controlled). unfortunately, the euro-coupler was never introduced although it works.

in britain, they run some freight trains (stone) at 100 mph, I guess, to avoid delaying passenger trains. the germans run some freight trains at this speed to on high-speed-corridors. the french have trains with refrigerator-cars (fruit and vegetables) for 90 oder 100mph.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

european freight trains are quite short, because the screw couplers do not allow for heavier trains. otherwise, you have to cut in additional locomotives (radio-controlled). unfortunately, the euro-coupler was never introduced although it works.

in britain, they run some freight trains (stone) at 100 mph, I guess, to avoid delaying passenger trains. the germans run some freight trains at this speed to on high-speed-corridors. the french have trains with refrigerator-cars (fruit and vegetables) for 90 oder 100mph.

err,,, In Europe freight train length limited more by siding length than by the strength of the coupler.. According to Group Standards (GM/RT2102) screw couplers have an ultimate strength of 270,000lbs while the FRA says knuckle couplers have a strength of 400,000lbs. Yet train lengths in Europe are limited to750m (2460ft) while train lengths in North America can run upwards of 6000ft. plus. Plus.. most new freight wagons are fitted with knuckle couplers,, yet the train length remains the same. There are a couple of exceptions though.. The High Capacity Track Replacement Train is 846m (2775ft.) and can only be stabled in a limited number of places.

100mph Freight trains in Britain eh?? And stone yet?!?!?! Where is this exactly because I have never seen one.. As far as I know the fastest freight tains are the "Enterprise" intermodals that run on the East Coast Mainline at 75 mph, which also happens to be the top speed of any freight train running in Europe (where this 80mph figure came from in the title I'll never know).

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainfinder22

The best way to not a crash is to prevent one. CTC and real time dispatching systems using GPS to tell the tower where the trains are at all times means that passenger and freight CAN run together

There are plenty of other ways to cause crashes other than route conflict or exceeding movement authority

Trains can derail.
Cars can fail.
Train handling can cause derailments.

to name a few.

As long as there in no perfection in frt railroading, some sort of pass. car safety stds are needed.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

FRA ?
When was the last time a passenger train in the USA crashed and killed 100 people?
When was the last time a passenger train in Europe crashed and killed 100 people?
In Japan ?

Chase MD would have killed over 100 had the FRA safety stds not been built into the cars.

...and this was on the safest piece of RR in the US w.r.t. signalling and track stucture.

Accidents happen. To not be prepared is negligence.

[Anonymous]

Very few freight cars in europe are capable to run at 80 mph. A few cars are allowed to run at 75... empty. And the heavy coal trains (about 6,000 tons) don't go faster than 50 mph.

Maybe an error when converting kilometers to miles.

[martin.knoepfel]

the 100mph stone trains were operated by foster yeoman.

when wisconsin central took over part of the british rail system, they were quite surprised thise was possible. I don't exactly remember were I read it, but it was most probably "trains".

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

the 100mph stone trains were operated by foster yeoman.

when wisconsin central took over part of the british rail system, they were quite surprised thise was possible. I don't exactly remember were I read it, but it was most probably "trains".

I think you're probably confusing mph with km/h. F-Y used class 59s, which had a max speed of 100 km/h (60mph) Although the last 5 were geared for 75mph (120km/h)
See http://www.thejunction.org.uk/cl59.html
It's an easy mistake to make,, who invented the bloody metric system anyway????

[Junctionfan]

Speaking of conjestion and the U.K. Clapham Junction supposedly runs 2500 trains a day.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Speaking of conjestion and the U.K. Clapham Junction supposedly runs 2500 trains a day.

Yeah,, it's about that,, currently around 2000 movements / day. But it's not congested,, there's 16 platforms at the station and several relief lines all serving 4 different routes,, and there can be upwards of 10 trains all on the move at the same time.. The signal box is manned by 6 people, and at rush hour it's a bit like controlled chaos...

[TH&B]

The heaviest trains in Europe generaly do not use the screw coupler, Foster Yeoman stone trains use knuckle couplers and so do the heaviest or trains in England. In Germany and Sweden use the Russian type semi-automatic coupler on the heaviest trains. I don't know much about this coupler, it is obviously stronger then the screw coupler but how does it compare to the knuckle ? does it have loose slack ?
One advantage to the screw coupler is that the lack can be adjusted, tightened or loosened. The disadvantage is that it has to be done manualy wich is labour intensive and dangerous to couple up etc. The TGV trains use the old screw coupler !

[Anonymous]

Look people, we have different standards than Europe. You'll probably never find any trains of great length in Europe like we have here in the northern americas. Their engines, although very powerful are also very lightweight. The AEM7's that we use on Amtrak, are 7000 hp, but weigh just 92 tons. They perform best when a consist is kept to less than 6-7 amfleet cars. When you start making the consist longer or adding in a couple of heritage or veiwliner cars, they take much longer to accelarate and hold at speed. Europe's axle lading is much lighter than ours', is why much of their freight equipment still has 2 axle cars, while we've had 4-6 axle cars for over a century. Not saying we can't have high speed freight service, but their has to be an extensive investment into it or it will be doomed from the start. By the way, you can't run 6 axle locomotives at high speed due to severe truck hunting. 4 axle loco's are best suited for the job.


Glenn
A R E A L RAILROADER...A TRUE AMERICAN!!!

[Junctionfan]

Like the P-42 with over 4400 hp. It is a very strong and fast GP like unit that would do a good job for intermodal trains.

[M636C]

With respect to Mark Hemphill's comments about truck hunting, today I saw, for the first time, a real example of truck hunting at speed. It was on a northbound Pacific National container train that we had followed up the western side of the Great Divide to the crest at Cullerin. As the train dropped down grade from the crest, it was drawing away from us as the car speedo indicated 120km/h (about 75mph)(20km/h faster than the road limit and 10km/h faster than the rail speed limit - although the car speedo might be fast). We drew level on the flatter sections, and the leading truck of RRAY 7036 (an articulated single level container wagon with two (end) 40' platforms and three 48' platforms) was oscillating fairly violently, enough for the container to be visibly moving laterally relative to that on the preceding wagon.

Twenty years ago I was involved in investigations into truck hunting, but this was the first example I'd seen (and in "the wild" too).

Peter

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The American 3-piece freight car truck still exists because it's cheap and does what it was designed to do. It is NOT a high-speed design. 80 MPH freight in this country would require freight cars to be equipped with passenger trucks with their multiple suspension just to stay on the track.
As has been mentioned in other posts, there really isn't any economic demand for higher freight speeds than those we already have.

[Junctionfan]

I really would be more interested in seeing track improvement and reduction of crossings for bridges to allow the intermodals to go 70 like BNSF does out west, for a longer duration of time. If the trains could go 60-70mph for an extended period of time, than there would be few needs for crew changes and in-terminal waits.

[Overmod]

There's nothing about the inherent design of the American 'three-piece freight truck' that prevents high speed... it needs different and better damping. Look at the trucks on the MHCs, for example. Much of the "multiple suspension" requirement on passenger cars has to do with improving ride quality as perceived by the passengers, or implementing better carbody tilt or roll control; these are of far less importance on freight equipment. The equalization characteristics of three-piece trucks are inherently excellent; if I recall correctly, some of the early UP streamliners used Taylor-style trucks (which are essentially a glorified three-piece design).

There are ways to implement longitudinal damping (e.g. viscous coupling) between the bolster and carbody pivots, which will interrupt the kinds of resonance causing the yaw component of hunting (and which are not difficult to retrofit to existing designs of rolling stock). Torque struts and rods can be used from bolster to sideframes if desired, or across the ends of the truck between sideframes (with rubber bushings at each end) if more force attenuation is desired in any plane of truck action.

In the past, it's been desirable to use a longer truck wheelbase for stability, but this inherently causes greater wheel (and track) wear on curves. There have been designs for steerable freight bogies, but the cost and maintenance limitations on these (and the fact that most types don't 'fail safe' if their linkages fail or are bent) will clearly restrict their use in interchange service until a 'critical mass' of parts, service locations, know-how and general awareness has built up.

Braking becomes a much more critical factor than dynamic stability at speeds much above 60mph -- remember that kinetic energy roughly doubles between 60 and 80mph. Imho single-acting tread brakes don't cut it... and the logical alternative, cheek-plate disc braking, is expensive and somewhat difficult to apply to these trucks and, perhaps more importantly, traditional American chilled wheel profiles. (For example, applying the disc to the wheel both requires location points, which are stress raisers, and hides the wheel face behind the disc, which makes inspection for cracks and defects originating from those raisers difficult to detect) My opinion is that some form of multiple center-of-axle disc brake, similar in principle to that applied to passenger cars, may be the answer (with the caliper floating vertically, on a bracket close to the truck bolster, which helps absorb torque displacement of the sideframes on braking, and allows use of conventional carbody-mounted brake cylinders and reach rods) -- I've checked with the wheel shop adjacent to the Arkansas Railroad Museum and they see little objective difficulty in sourcing and servicing brake discs at the time wheelsets are renewed.

I might add (plug) that I've developed in principle a system to implement semi-ECP braking on standard interchange freight consists, using devices similar to FREDs that connect into the train line at intervals and use buff-and-draft sensors that fit between couplers. This was originally intended to make fast-acting PTC workable on long freight consists, but is perfectly suited for the high-speed service that PTC and PTS would make legal...

It might be desirable to put some additional castings or fittings on the trucks, for example to keep the sideframes from separating from the bolsters and wheel bearing casings after impacts or derailments. I believe that tension straps of modern materials could accompli***his easily (and be relatively easy safety retrofits to existing trucks, too, which expands the market and brings down effective marginal cost). But none of this stuff (while it *is* at least in part derived from rocket science) is particularly difficult, or requires expensive capitalization that only applies to boutique high-speed service. In my opinion, air resistance constitutes a logical economic upper bound to most freight service speed well below the critical speed of three-piece truck designs with proper detailing...

[TH&B]

Most freight is a bulk freight that realy doesn't need to move so fast. These "fast" European stone trains and coal trains and even mixed freights that run through passenger stations at 110km/h+ looks impresive. But the overall average speed for all European freight trains put together is as patheticly low as in North America. European freights are engineered to run fast mostly just to get out of the way of passenger trains.
They spend alot of time in the hole waiting for a window to move, some trains can only move at night and sit all day waiting. It is mostly bulk materials anyways and nobody is going to pay you for the extra speed, they may want it to go faster for free.. but it's not ecconomical. Imagine upgrading all US freight cars to operate at higher speeds just to get out of the way for Amtrak but not improving freight transit time ? Then you can foot the bill to the government or the rail shippers.

ps;- England alone may have a higher average speed because they have virtualy got rid of all loose car railwaying and operate almost exclusively limited unit type trains.

[Anonymous]

With respect to Mark Hemphill's comments about truck hunting, today I saw, for the first time, a real example of truck hunting at speed. It was on a northbound Pacific National container train that we had followed up the western side of the Great Divide to the crest at Cullerin. As the train dropped down grade from the crest, it was drawing away from us as the car speedo indicated 120km/h (about 75mph)(20km/h faster than the road limit and 10km/h faster than the rail speed limit - although the car speedo might be fast). We drew level on the flatter sections, and the leading truck of RRAY 7036 (an articulated single level container wagon with two (end) 40' platforms and three 48' platforms) was oscillating fairly violently, enough for the container to be visibly moving laterally relative to that on the preceding wagon.
Twenty years ago I was involved in investigations into truck hunting, but this was the first example I'd seen (and in "the wild" too).
Peter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of "truck hunting" I have been on Boxcars that were truck hunting and That was no fun. For some strange reason noty having to do with speed the trucks hunted then stopped then started again then stoped...Kinda like being in purgatory for 8 hours and could not get any sleep either. Stack Trains and Grainers that have a low center of gravity almost never hunt but Boxcars for whatever reason have a propesity to hunt..

[Overmod]

All it takes to induce hunting is the right oscillation frequency and either worn wheels or problems with the railhead profile... lubrication of the rail gauge face can also play a part. There is very little inherent damping in the pivot of a contemporary conventional truck, and modern lubricant methods for the pivot (remember those old Shell solid disk lubricant pucks from the '60s?) can reduce what little there is rather dramatically in the name of reducing absolute wear.

Every time I see trackwork on the NS Birmingham line, I'm dumbfounded that all the cars stay on the rails. let alone that truck hunting doesn't get induced regularly. There are spots in Douglasville, Georgia, for example, where rail of one weight has been reversed and welded back against rail of a different weight, without any attempt to grind or dress the difference in gauge profile. You can hear the trucks clash and work as they engage this, and while I did not observe overt truck hunting, you can see a certain amount of brinelling-like distortion in the gauge face up and down from the transition point...

I suspect that your observation about hunting is related much more to the relative loading of the truck springs -- the boxcars are almost by definition going to be empty; the stacks or grain cars loaded. I would think that an unloaded truck will hunt much more dramatically than one that's bearing substantial weight, since the on-center restoring force of the coned treads (and friction in the pivot) would be higher when loaded, but the polar moment of inertia and the flange impact forces from truck hunting motion would be essentially constant regardless of applied weight.

[M636C]

Some of our trucks have diagonal anti-lozenging struts, accompanied by rubber pads above the bearings to put some flexibility back. One grain train is completely equipped with these, and when empty it runs regularly at 110 km/h with no apparent problems.

The thing that struck me most about the hunting was the visibility of the axle movement, clearly driving the action, with the truck appearing to follow, rather than the truck appearing to rotate. It looked as if the bolster might not be moving, all the rotation being taken up in lozenging action in the sideframes. I wish I'd had a video camera along! If that was the case, all the work we did on pivots and sidebearers wouldn't affect that car!

Peter

[Overmod]

Peter -- Interesting!

For the benefit of our American readers who may think that lozenging relates to using Sucrets for a sore throat -- this refers to parallelogram skew (where the axle skews off normal and drives one sideframe back relative to the other and to the bolster, and this in turn skews the other axle in the truck). "Lozenge" is another word for the figure we call 'diamond' on this side of the pond, as in the diamond shape on a playing card.

I would be extremely worried to see this happening to the extent of visible carbody displacement -- it doesn't take much lateral thumping to disengage the axle from one or both sideframes, or to cause cocking or shock damage to the bearings -- in either case, you have a sudden derailment on the leading end of a car, which I would expect to have the kind of sudden and catastrophic effect that forward-end drifeshaft universal failure has in an automobile. I'd have reported this at the earliest possible opportunity (but then again, perhaps it's really not that unusual, or dangerous, in the real world. Of course, some NASA folks launched the Challenger knowing full well that the temperature was 20 degrees lower than the critical do-not-exceed temperature of the O-ring seals, so informed thinking may not be an adequate gauge of catastrophic event development...)

In my opinion, there would have to be something substantially wrong with the joints between the bolster and the sideframes to allow sufficient rotation there for this severe and self-sustaining degree of hunting action to persist. I would also speculate that allowing the oscillations to persist for any length of time would begin to 'hammer' these joints further and further open and loosen up the truck dramatically for lozenging.

Be interesting to see how sharp the critical resonance transitions for different types of manufactured three-piece trucks might be on different types of track subject to different construction and maintenance methods. It might easily be that only one or two mph may be the difference between relative stability and catastrophic resonant oscillation.

Are the struts you use primarily tension, compression, or both? Do they have rubber donuts or other elastomeric isolators at one or both ends?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

There's nothing about the inherent design of the American 'three-piece freight truck' that prevents high speed... it needs different and better damping. Look at the trucks on the MHCs, for example. Much of the "multiple suspension" requirement on passenger cars has to do with improving ride quality as perceived by the passengers, or implementing better carbody tilt or roll control; these are of far less importance on freight equipment. The equalization characteristics of three-piece trucks are inherently excellent; if I recall correctly, some of the early UP streamliners used Taylor-style trucks (which are essentially a glorified three-piece design).

There are ways to implement longitudinal damping (e.g. viscous coupling) between the bolster and carbody pivots, which will interrupt the kinds of resonance causing the yaw component of hunting (and which are not difficult to retrofit to existing designs of rolling stock). Torque struts and rods can be used from bolster to sideframes if desired, or across the ends of the truck between sideframes (with rubber bushings at each end) if more force attenuation is desired in any plane of truck action.

In the past, it's been desirable to use a longer truck wheelbase for stability, but this inherently causes greater wheel (and track) wear on curves. There have been designs for steerable freight bogies, but the cost and maintenance limitations on these (and the fact that most types don't 'fail safe' if their linkages fail or are bent) will clearly restrict their use in interchange service until a 'critical mass' of parts, service locations, know-how and general awareness has built up.

Braking becomes a much more critical factor than dynamic stability at speeds much above 60mph -- remember that kinetic energy roughly doubles between 60 and 80mph. Imho single-acting tread brakes don't cut it... and the logical alternative, cheek-plate disc braking, is expensive and somewhat difficult to apply to these trucks and, perhaps more importantly, traditional American chilled wheel profiles. (For example, applying the disc to the wheel both requires location points, which are stress raisers, and hides the wheel face behind the disc, which makes inspection for cracks and defects originating from those raisers difficult to detect) My opinion is that some form of multiple center-of-axle disc brake, similar in principle to that applied to passenger cars, may be the answer (with the caliper floating vertically, on a bracket close to the truck bolster, which helps absorb torque displacement of the sideframes on braking, and allows use of conventional carbody-mounted brake cylinders and reach rods) -- I've checked with the wheel shop adjacent to the Arkansas Railroad Museum and they see little objective difficulty in sourcing and servicing brake discs at the time wheelsets are renewed.

I might add (plug) that I've developed in principle a system to implement semi-ECP braking on standard interchange freight consists, using devices similar to FREDs that connect into the train line at intervals and use buff-and-draft sensors that fit between couplers. This was originally intended to make fast-acting PTC workable on long freight consists, but is perfectly suited for the high-speed service that PTC and PTS would make legal...

It might be desirable to put some additional castings or fittings on the trucks, for example to keep the sideframes from separating from the bolsters and wheel bearing casings after impacts or derailments. I believe that tension straps of modern materials could accompli***his easily (and be relatively easy safety retrofits to existing trucks, too, which expands the market and brings down effective marginal cost). But none of this stuff (while it *is* at least in part derived from rocket science) is particularly difficult, or requires expensive capitalization that only applies to boutique high-speed service. In my opinion, air resistance constitutes a logical economic upper bound to most freight service speed well below the critical speed of three-piece truck designs with proper detailing...

Overmod, I think you were the one who told be this some time back, but is it true that the single axle trucks naturally resist hunting? If I remember correctly, the problems with cars like the TTOX and TTFX Four Runner were with inflexibility through tight yard trackage, rail wear due to the 36' wheelbase ( I understand the TTOX's had some curving flexibility but not a true radial steering mechanism), and of course too light tare weight which could cause pull over on curves.

That being said, was it your conclusion that such single axle designs were actually better for high speed service? With larger wheels and journals to bear greater load weight (and adding a little more to the tare), an extended platform to handle 53' trailers, and radial steering, these cars could be apt for high speed intermodal.

[M636C]

Overmod,

The word "hammering" accurately describes the effect the axles appeared to be having on the truck, the leading end of the car, and the (possibly empty) 40' container on that platform. Thinking about it more, there probably was some bolster rotation taking place, but the whole process was being led by the axles visibly moving laterally. The amount of rotation would be fairly small, as would be the extent of lozenging required. The section of track where I observed the hunting, while straight, has relatively poor subgrade, and I've observed poor line and level there on occasions, despite the speed boards allowing 160km/h (100 mph) for passenger trains. The train stopped a few kilometres further north, (possibly because inspection and sinaling work was in progress) and I didn't see it again to see if the hunting continued.

The trucks with diagonal braces have rubber bushes at each locating point. I would expect that the rods are alternately in tension and compression. They are Chinese-made trucks but are generally similar to standard US trucks. They are used on container wagons as well as grain wagons, but there aren't many of that type.

I recall seeing fairly worrying oscillation on video records of a truck fitted with someone's idea of a "worn" profile we had expensively machined onto new wheels, but that was nowhere as fast (or rough) as the actual hunting I saw recently. Those experimental wheels were restored to standard profile fairly quickly.

There have been a number of freight trucks of rigid frame design used in Australia on 110 km/h vehicles, but the majority still use three piece designs (including a lot of second hand US "100 ton" trucks). The diagonal cross linkage was developed by a long time opponent of one particular rigid frame truck.

Peter

[Overmod]

FM, the classical definition I learned for 'hunting' many years ago was a coupled resultant of nosing (which is yaw) and rolling. I have since seen many people apply the term more to the observed yaw component and its effects, but it is helpful to recognize in some cases that 'pumping' from loading and unloading of the suspension can drive some of the oscillation.

The ForeRunner and its ilk do tend to be difficult to induce because their effective polar moment of inertia is enormous and their primary suspension is usually very closely constrained to keep the axles normal to the chassis; to the extent that the axle can yaw relative to the carbody, it's mostly 'shear' force taken by the springs, and that ain't usually much imho.

Now, you have a consequence with the longer rigid wheelbase, which is greater prospective wear (for a given equal axle loading) of the tread profile, greater incidence of flange contact on sharp curves, more possible racking on transitions or laterally uneven track, etc. There is no equalization between axles, so we're back in the 1820s again in that respect.

IN PRINCIPLE, I favor the 1950s idea of using separate wheels, able to turn at independent rates on the same axle, as was done on some of the lightweight passenger train designs, for single-container, four-wheel cars. I did some preliminary work on single-axle Talgo-style articulated container sets, but haven't pursued that approach lately. I recognize the implicit problems with bearings, lube, maintenance, suspension when the independent-wheel approach is used, but it does eliminate some of the problems that would otherwise require full proportional radial steering ... difficult with 36' wheelbase! -- to deal with.

M636C -- what's your opinion of magic wear rate, both theoretically and practically?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

FM, the classical definition I learned for 'hunting' many years ago was a coupled resultant of nosing (which is yaw) and rolling. I have since seen many people apply the term more to the observed yaw component and its effects, but it is helpful to recognize in some cases that 'pumping' from loading and unloading of the suspension can drive some of the oscillation.

The ForeRunner and its ilk do tend to be difficult to induce because their effective polar moment of inertia is enormous and their primary suspension is usually very closely constrained to keep the axles normal to the chassis; to the extent that the axle can yaw relative to the carbody, it's mostly 'shear' force taken by the springs, and that ain't usually much imho.

Now, you have a consequence with the longer rigid wheelbase, which is greater prospective wear (for a given equal axle loading) of the tread profile, greater incidence of flange contact on sharp curves, more possible racking on transitions or laterally uneven track, etc. There is no equalization between axles, so we're back in the 1820s again in that respect.

IN PRINCIPLE, I favor the 1950s idea of using separate wheels, able to turn at independent rates on the same axle, as was done on some of the lightweight passenger train designs, for single-container, four-wheel cars. I did some preliminary work on single-axle Talgo-style articulated container sets, but haven't pursued that approach lately. I recognize the implicit problems with bearings, lube, maintenance, suspension when the independent-wheel approach is used, but it does eliminate some of the problems that would otherwise require full proportional radial steering ... difficult with 36' wheelbase! -- to deal with.

When you refer to allowing wheels to turn independent of the opposite wheel on the same axle, is that by using a differential gear? I thought I read something about that in a TRAINS article awhile back, something to the effect that separate turning rates would cause more flange on rail contact, I'll have to dig back when I find time.

I may need to talk to you offline on this, but what is your opinion of a "half rigid" wheelbase wherein one end of the car is a true single axle truck and the other is connected to an articulated two axle truck? The only example I can think of is the Trough Train, where the end trucks were single axle. I think it may even be possible now to have a true articulation over a single axle truck, by using radial steering arms connected to each corresponding car body. This allows the articulated truck to turn freely with the curvature, and could be used in conjunction with the half rigid idea on both ends of a two platform car for a more ideal load factor for typical TOFC and single stack domestic container moves. Whether or not that would create more problems than it solves remains to be seen.

[Overmod]

All I mean is that each of the wheels has an independent bearing, and turns freely on it, rather than both wheels being rigidly mounted on an axle and constrained to rotate together. The book "New York Central and the Trains of the Future" by Geoffrey H Doughty has some illustrations of how this was done on the lightweight trains (a principal purpose being to allow very low aisle floor heights without walkovers). For freight, I would expect that each wheel's bearing housings would be in extended 'collars' outward from the wheel hub, to take the additional leverage on the bearings due to heavy lateral thrust. One potential benefit is that the truck-to-axle mountings no longer have a free-rotating requirement, meaning that the effective stiffness and compliance of the truck frames can be much better controlled. I proceeded on the assumption that the bearings could be effectively sealed 'for the life of the wheels' (which would be routinely Hegenscheidt-trued according to magic wear rate profiling, and perhaps tread-hard-coated, with the object being to have the wheels go to minimum legal diameter just as the bearings run out of 'life' -- about 500,000 miles, using Timken's stated bearing life from a few years ago, although of course YMMV.

I don't like single-axle trucks that aren't given drawbar guiding and steering, whether on one or both ends of a car. The 'easiest' way to deal with a two-wheel 'island' truck on one end of a set is to put the axle on some kind of steering carriage or lever arrangement linked to a drawbar pivot -- principle can be a la Talgo, for example -- so that the angle of steer is proportional to the drawbar displacement from 'straight ahead'. (How very typically HO model railroad!) Note that a similar arrangement, with the 'drawbar' being entirely between the two 'sideframes', can give you the equivalent of an articulated, steering four-wheel truck between adjacent units (I used a variation of this approach, with hydraulic equalizing (!), for a high-speed passenger design with easily field-switchable cars).

I think there are dramatically diminishing 'returns to scale' for attempts to put steering axles on articulated freight trainsets. Slightly revised -- and properly-maintained -- wheel profiles and independent rotation give you the benefits without the fancy levers ... or having to decide how you get them to position the axles, without forcing, relative to the carbody. (In my opinion, forcing two-axle-truck tracking via geometric levers is a very, very poor idea outside of computer simulations or drawing-board plans -- look what can happen in a derailment, for example).

Remember that radial steering is much more important on *driving* axles than it is on idlers, up to the point that very substantial weight is being applied to the wheel treads and railhead, above the deformation point for the metal under the martensitic layer. And at that weight point, I think track maintenance in general will begin to eat up more and more of the 'revenue' differential derived from bigger and heavier unit vehicles. High-speed track is a very, very different thing from heavyweight, slow-speed practice, imho.

You might look into a variant of Allan Cripe's pendulum-suspended two-wheel trucks between adjacent 45-foot carriages, if your axle loading in design can take it; this might give some interesting roll dynamics for stack operation of relatively light cargos. I've toyed with this but don't have any particular applications for it -- sorta like a railroad equivalent of Ettore Bugatti's 12,500rpm engine of WWII.

[M636C]

Overmod,

I'm not sure what you mean by "magic wear rate".

I have ridden in Spani***algo trains which have independent wheels at speeds up to 90 mph, although now they go much faster than that. The main impression was that more road shock came through than in a conventional car with trucks, but it was quite acceptable and I was surprised when I checked the speed against kilometre posts.

It shouldn't be a problem for freight cars.

I don't know if you know much about the experimental "Iron Highway", built for CSX by MK about ten years ago. It could best be described as a Talgo flat car set, with a single axle between each platform. There were trucks on each end car.

I was completely amazed to find this train, disassembled, in the Altona depot of Colin Rees Transport near Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (a long way from Boise!). I don't think they ever ran it, but two intermediate cars later appeared in a rail museum in Seymour, Victoria.

I bring this up because this appears to have been built with independent wheels, each carried by two standard roller bearings. This allowed a lower floor by locating the car articulation point lower since it didn't have to clear the axle.

The point of all this was that when I found the train, the first thing I found was the hundred or so two wheel trucks, which took a bit of identification. But the point I'm very slowly coming around to was that every "wheelset" had a light (1.5") torque tube connecting the two wheels side to side, bolted into the three bearing cap bolt holes.

This looks to me as though after initial tests with independent wheels, someone at MK (or MPI) decided they wanted wheels connected to eachother.

Apart from the above, I have seen the four wheel TTX cars in use on the RF&P, but most of the cars I saw had pedestal suspension. There were some cars fitted with a British design, with very long leaf springs, so called "taperlite" because the leaves had leaves with varying thickness. I would have thought that these would have very little steering capability.

Peter

[Overmod]

I have to admit that I wasn't paying much attention to railroad technology during the years the Iron Highway was under development. (It is one of the pre-Junctionfan technologies that would have been used to provide truck-ferry service...). I assume that you know about this:

http://www.stcwa.org.au/journal/2April2003/1049082567_3671.html

including why (if there is, in fact, such a why) cars of the train may have gone to preservation rather than being put to work.

If I had to guess, I'd say that single-wheel installations that don't have some sort of cross-reinforcement would be prone to develop some kind of shimmy at speed, possibly worse at certain critical speeds or on some kinds of track or track profile. That's part of the reason I favor a through axle with the wheels able to rotate individually on it.

But from what you describe, the torque tube would be joining the ROTATING components, but is nowhere near stiff enough to 'force' both wheels to keep together on curves -- perhaps it winds up and 'kicks' the slower wheel instead of letting it grind the way that a classical axleset does. That's an awful big 'perhaps' -- please, please tell me you can find someone who will explain this...

[M636C]

Overmod,

I hadn't seen that website. It does explain who was thinking of running it and to some extent where. In Australia, clearances in the East don't allow even a relatively low level vehicle like the Iron Highway to carry trucks, although there is no problem west of Adelaide. (In fact, you coudn't even drive trucks at rail level in the East - we have special Road Railers with a cut down profile for tunnels).

I've always thought of the Iron Highway as a solution for a problem we haven't developed yet.

A possibility is that the two cars in the museum are not there as an alternative to scrapping, but are there being assembled by a group of people experienced in rail technology and capable of getting complex item to work at a low cost.

But nothing has been heard from Rees or South Spur about actually using the Iron Highway. There is virtually no TOFC traffic in Australia now, not since the Eyre Highway (across the Nullarbor) was actually given a pavement in the 1970s.

And sorry, I'm just describing what I saw, with all the expletives deleted. The "torque tube" looked like a classic afterthought brought on after testing, and yes, it didn't look strong enough to do much, compared to the really heavy duty nature of everythng else.

We think that Rees (or South Spur) bought the Iron Highway for scrap value to see if it could be used for anything, but thought better of it when they had a close look. If I find anyone to explain all this, you will be the first to know.

Peter

[Overmod]

I note that the following item, from just a few months ago, has a contact e-mail in it:

http://www.dotars.gov.au/transinfra/technewsletter/issue7mar04.htm#7

Of course, this person may well be known to you, but it does seem to me that he'd be in a position to tell what current plans for the Iron Highway are. I certainly hope they're not actually cutting it up at this point, even if they can't find a cost-effective service to run it.

Seems to me it would be a logical service for the new 'mid-continent' extension north of Alice Springs; wouldn't this be a sensible way to transport Indonesian and Chinese-sourced goods to the southern Australian states, on a route where there is no real effective road equivalent and something of a premium application for higher speed (high utilization of high-speed-capable equipment; happy co-existence with passenger operation).

Logical thing, I wonder, would be to build 'high-level platforms' at roughly deck height, with a very long shallow slope, to allow multiple trucks to turn and pull off directly rather than have to uncouple, drop ramps, drive over the ROW structure, etc. This is perhaps the classical poster child for 'appropriate technology' solutions: dirt, RCC, and paving rather than adaptive hydraulics, fancy indexing locators, or dual-mode RoadRailers...

Is there a map of Australian rail routes with high vertical clearances? I'd expect that any SAR route would have more-than-adequate lateral clearance, for the same reason some American ex-Erie mainlines do -- broad gauge legacy.

[Paul Milenkovic]

1) What did the Super C (Santa Fe Chicago-L.A. piggy back train that ran maybe 14 double-trailer flatcars and a squadron of locomotives an kept a faster schedule than the Super Chief-El Capitan) use? 3-piece freight trucks or something fancy? They may have been limited to 79 MPH, but they must have done a lot of 79 MPH running to keep their schedule. What ever happened to it? Was it too expensive to operate? Did it cause too much disruption of other trains?

2) The Alan Cripe Turbo Train used a solid axle connection between the wheels while Talgo famously allows them to rotate at different speeds. If you want to see some ultra-cool drawings of the Turbo Train suspension system, go to http://ep.espacenet.com (European patent database -- uses PDFs, unlike USPTO), and search on Alan R Cripe. The thing uses a set of "wishbone" links and looks somewhat like the suspension on a Honda. The other ultra-cool thing you will find is his earlier versions of the Turbo Train done for the C&O railroad in the late 1950s -- there was a kind of connection between Turbo Train and Train X after all.

3) What ever happened to the Turbo Train? I heard that both Via and Amtrak Turbos spent a lot of time in the shop. Was the problem with the helicopter gas turbines (PT-6's) not meant for railroad use, with the power transmissions, or was that single-axle tilting suspension part of the problem? Or was it something prosaic like trouble prone wiring, AC, auxiliary systems?

4) I rode the Turbo Train once, over 30 years ago, and I thought it rode really well. Didn't seem very fast or have much acceleration (the acceleration honors go to the Budd Silverliner MU cars), and I remember that inside Grand Central (with the turbine shut off!) the thing reeked of jet fuel so bad that Mom thought she was going to vomit, but as a kid, the smell of jet fuel was the smell of things to do with, well, jets. The domes with the Plexiglas partition to the cab were beyond cool.

5) Is the pedestal the guide in which each axle wheel bearing is mounted? The British as well as the Japanese believe that to control hunting, you have to keep the axle bearing from wobbling inside that thing -- that lozenging effect -- and that is why the British like some kind of crank connection between the axle and the truck side frame -- to keep the axles stiff to that lozenging displacement. Don't you suppose some kind of rubber bushing in the pedestal to keep the axle bearing from wobbling would be good enough for 80 MPH operation with freight?

[M636C]

Overmod,

I am amazed! I spent years working for our Federal government, and never found anything useful on a website (aside from tax information) even including stuff I had to write for the websites myself!

The "integral ramps" look to me a bit like an accident looking for a place to happen!

The Iron Highway, and most other TOFC cars, have retaining lips to allow driving lengthwise, but if you didn't have to do that, plain flat cars with appropriate tiedowns would be good.

In Melbourne, at Webb Dock, they have a car deck height platform used by container fork lifts which would be suitable for that operation, except there are no routes out of Melbourne with high enough clearance for TOFC.

The "Iron Highway" photos on the website are all taken in the USA.

But CRT can't have given up yet. Perhaps Seymour are really doing a test assembly of the cars for CRT. But since it was sitting next to the recovered tender tank of a three cylinder Pacific scrapped in 1954, you got the impression that it was in the "past" category.

CRT operate a German freight railcar, a "Cargo Sprinter" obtained (just before the factory shut down) with a Federal research grant. I don't believe it can do anything that a couple of old switchers regeared for road speeds and a few standard flat cars coudn't do for lower cost (and there are enough for a few trains just sitting around).

They may have, or hope for, Federal funds for the Iron Highway. Anything diverted from roads would be good. The big problem with road funding is that it goes everywhere, distributed evenly, not according to need (or it would all be in a couple of cities).

The Victorian and South Australian clearances were theoretically the same as NSW standard gauge. In SA, there weren't many bridges and few tunnels, and a guy named Webb ex the MKT fixed up clearances for locomotive cylinders in the 1920s. The net result is that SA, and WA who only built the standard gauge in 1965, have good clearances. The former Commonweath trans-Australian (East-West) line never had any restrictions apart from the occasional bridge over the line (which they have excavated).

I'll ask Mr McNamara what's happening! (Don't hold your breath- a friend has been asking other people in the organisation without results)

Peter

[Overmod]

Peter, I think you've hit the right nail on the head, for the right reasons, with the Cargo Sprinter. The idea of small, independently powered vehicles for freight is an old and sweet-sounding song -- but usually gets into trouble when capital cost factors in. I remember some discussions with John Kneiling in the early '70s regarding 'feeder' use of his gas-turbine integral-train underframes in this kind of service by fitting them with 'modular cabs' (mine was essentially a light hi-rail vehicle with "MU" control for x number of the powered Kneiling rakes.) The problem was that light-traffic revenue almost never pays for the high-dollar hardware.

I believe the point of the Cargo Sprinter is that its length, weight/axle loading, and fuel consumption are less than a more conventional 'alternative', and perhaps its operating speed would be substantially higher as well. Australians are considerably ahead of the USA with respect to operating and maintaining this sort of vehicle -- you have an extensive service with railcars and DMUs that have multiple-speed transmissions, and some of the equipment from these could be used for the sort of thing a Cargo Sprinter does if you wanted to do "adaptive re-use." But I suspect the regeared-locomotive approach would be less expensive, as well as easier to re-convert if desired. My only question then is whether there would be increased track damage at the 'new' higher speeds permitted by the gearing.

Paul, I don't recall that the Super C cars were given particularly special suspension, and haven't yet found out any direct references about what things were done to the cars to make them suitable for higher speeds. AFAIK the trucks were conventional three-piece construction, but with better tolerances and perhaps pads for better absorption and/or lubrication at key points. Be interesting to look at one of the car cyclopedias from this era and see whether any manufacturer took pride in supplying the 'world's fastest freight' (sorry, BSM proponents!)

Cripe's stuff was nifty. And I thought he was shrewd to pitch the thing to UA and get them to build it!

After all these years, I still remember the Christmas card where Rudolph met his match...

To my knowledge, the train failed due to high operating and maintenance cost, spread over too few specialized units. This particularly applied to fuel cost, and availability post-'73. The transmission in particular was almost surely a formula for disaster -- take a look at its internal construction and you'll see why! Like all articulated trains, Turbo suffered from capacity problems. I have not seen track quality explicitly mentioned as a reason for demise, but this was almost certainly a major factor, both with regard to the public perception of the ride quality and with respect to maintenance of suspension, drivetrain, and other mechanical stuff. A very major problem was the issue of platform height -- many of the major stations in the NEC at the time were high-level platforms, and the Turbo was inherently a low-level train. If I recall correctly, the accommodations in the 'coaches' themselves were a bit cramped, following 'airliner' specs, which has never really been a formula for success in American passenger service -- I can't say because I was always up there on the glassed-in deck, looking out! If you were in one of those seats close to an axle, it was said you had a ride experience akin to being in a bus with a flat tire.

Presumably VIA Rail had similar experiences with their much longer Turbo sets -- to my eyes, very attractive in their mostly yellow livery, btw.

My understanding is that all the Turbos were cut up long ago. I'd like to be wrong.

You're correct about pedestal (it's much the same component the British refer to as 'hornguides'). Note that almost all modern high-speed trucks don't use them, as they explicitly preclude radial steering (except Cartazzi) and do require shimming or adjustable Franklin-style wedges, etc. to preclude uncontrolled axle tramp.

I had thought that the principal point of the 'crank' was to minimize the required sideframe length (and mass) and improve stiffness there, while maximizing the effective wheelbase (which, for example, can give better tracking and increase the period of any lateral truck oscillation that would build up to hunting)

I think most current practice follows the idea of using rubber-isolated struts to control wheel alignment in all desirable planes, and otherwise allowing the axle to 'float' relative to the truck frame. There are some pretty good illustrations of the Henschel FlexiFloat bogies on the Web that indicate what's needed with both primary and secondary suspension to get the proper mix of stiffness, decoupling, and isolation.

Back when I first started learning about high speed, the conventional 'wisdom' was that primary suspension needed to be very stiff, and secondary very soft, for high-speed passenger transportation. Canadians may remember the somewhat weird-looking chevron-sprung axleboxes on early LRC power -- IIRC much like the trux on the GP40X locomotivex. Secondary a la Amfleet, with those rubber bags. The problem is that soft VERTICAL damping and spring rate doesn't necessarily turn out to assure sufficient LATERAL ride quality -- I intensely disliked the sickening characteristics of short-period lateral excursion of the early cars. which was only compounded by the giggling of various plastic interior panels. I think it's much better to use struts, etc. to keep the axles located positively and allow the right 'mix' of effective spring rate and damping that's appropriate to a given speed or range of speeds in vehicle operation.

[oltmannd]

One variable in hunting is length. The longer the car, the high the hunting threshold speed. 90' TTX flats less likely to hunt at 80 mph than a 50 foot flat. In fact, some RRs limit those converted 50' box car intermodal flats to 50 mph because of stability issues.

[M636C]

Guys,

A truck used in Australia on our earliest 85' container wagons was a "General Steels Aligned Truck" which had rods linking the sideframe with the bolster, much like traction rods on passenger trucks. These held the sideframes square with the bolster without adding much weight or cost.

These were US Trucks and were available in the right timeframe for the "Super C"

Rockwell had a truck with sideframes with a cross beam on each that had ball joints on the far end connecting the two sideframes, allowing relative vertical twist but no lozenge movement. I think it was intended for cabooses, but we used one under a box car for high speed trials in the early 1970s.

I don't have my 1970 Cyclopedia with me right now!

One problem with the "regeared switcher" approach was the old 567s wouldn't meet current emissions requirements, the whole thing with the Cargo Sprinter having reduced emissions as a major goal. It would probably be better than the replaced trucks, but not as good as the two big truck engines under the Cargo Sprinter.

Peter

[Anonymous]

I live in miami fl and work near the fia east coast . north miami main line. the trains i see cruising by are intermodels and rock trains. i have rode along with these trains in my truck and i know for a fact thespeed of these trains do reach 50mph. too me thats a safe speed for trains .. we have to keep trains on the tracks for safety. trains need safe operations not a happy go lucky person with a need for speed... accidents kill and destroy people property and above all change lives forever...

[Anonymous]

Overmod said
My understanding is that all the Turbos were cut up long ago. I'd like to be wrong.

Not entirely true. Amtrak still owns (and to my knowledge, still operates [the latest I can confirm their operation is 2001]) a few Rhor turbos, and recently refrebished them for the aborted Acela Commuter service

[Overmod]

I was referring only to the UA/Alan Cripe TurboTrains, not the Frangeco-style and Rohr trains. As you point out, a number of those are still around. However, to me any of those French trains lack the magic of the Cripe train...

[daveklepper]

Rode the two NY-Boston Turbos about 5 or 6 time, about 3 or 4 times to GCT and twice after it got switched to Penn. Rode well at high speed even on jointed track. Rode poorly on jointed track at 35mph in the Park Av. Tunnels and poorly through switches. At one time the engineer pushed it to 110 mph going west on the eastbound express track Rye to New Rochelle to make sure he'd make his slot at Shell Tower. Rode beautifully. Maintenance and fuel costs ended its operation. One was taken on a USA tour just after Amtrak started.

I thoroughly enjoyed sitting behind the engineer in the "pod".

[Anonymous]

you have to remember that european trains have a coupler system, bumpers and
chain link, which inhibits monster trains such as we have in america. all their freight
trains are short by our comparisons. also they do not have compatible electric
transmission systems to permit runthrough freight from country to country, except for
say, germany to switzerland and austria. so their freight traffic is within their
own boundaries for the most part. also they have to have fixed schedules for freight
trains to fit into the operating pattern with fixed passenger schedules. american
railroads can not operate freight trains on a rigid schedule day after day. the differences
are tremendous. of course the germans don't and can't operate a 17,000-ton freight
train, nowhere even close. another great difference. no use trying to compare the
two countries! theo sommerkamp [e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Do you want freight trains to do 80? There is a lot of things that have to go in to the track layout. I shoud know I work for CP as a forman in the track dept. Just take the DOT Haz mat book. Most RR shipped what in that book if the state and Fed will let them move it. Now would you like that stuff move like a 18 wheeler?????

[CrazyDiamond]

At the risk of showing my very limited knowledge here goes:

First I acknowledge that greater speeds allow you to do more with less....but as speed increases, it takes more and more effort (cost). Fuel consumption increases, wear increases exponentially, mechanical quality has to increase, engineering has to increase, derailments become more catastrophic ( one CN derailment incurred a $28M envriomental charge), etc...so while speed offers its benefits more speed in North America RRs does come with ever increasing costs.

I look at capacity as an equation:
Volume = Frequency + Intensity + Duration
Volume = How Often + How Long&Speed + Delay

In the posts above all we have talked about is increasing the intensity of our trains....longer heavier faster trains. We talk about speed as a tool to reduce the Delay and to get more.

From my perspective here in Halifax, Nova Scotia the Frequency variable is under-utilized. Its seem we have this "day shift" mentality....trains arrive early in the morning to drop off freight, the yard/port move containers around to (a) disassemble the arrivals, and (b) assemble trains for departure. Then in the early evening the trains depart here. Contrainers can often sit in port for a day or longer before its actually moving on the track. THIS IS HUGE DELAY from the customers perspective!!! IMHO, if we (North America) spent our effort (cost) into having our yards/port and RRs organize their operations so that trains are leaving/arriving on a 24 hours basis....I think that would yield a much higher ROI. Our trains can still run at the speeds and lengths they are now, so there would be no need to spend billions and billions with these infrastructure overhauls.

I know more trains require more locos and more staff, but I think this can easily be paid for from the money we would have spent on the effort (costs) I mentioned above. As well, today's computing applications are nothing short of amazing....and I think very advanced CTC, scheduling, timing, perhaps a few extra sidings, and better supply-chain integration with the (a) customer, and (b) distributors/shippers, etc would give the North American RRs: newfound capacity with less end-to-end delay. Sure gees, if a contrainer can be taken off a ship, and be on its way in 4 hours instead of 24 then we just saved 20 hours right there!!! How fast of a train would we need to make up 20 hours!!!

Yes maybe no???

Side Note:
Comparing apples to oranges here.... I work for the telecommunications industry...and while our operations are very different than the RR, we are not without our own unique challenges. However our infrastructure is very well utilized.....with many of our 'routes' running minimum 75% utilization at any given time, and 100% some of the time. Our reporting and modeling applications tells us when and where to add capacity, and how much to add.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it!

What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains .

"Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much.

If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable.

Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it!

What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains .

"Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much.

If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable.

Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations.

Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle.

It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity.

If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital.

[rrandb]

What about the need for closer inspections of equipment thar operates at the higher speeds. How many passenger cars weight 286,000 lbs? Also the cars used with high speed passenger trains were equipted with special high speed trucks. And if i remember correctly the former high speed freight were only faster compared with normal freight times. They did not run that much faster they were only handeled faster.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by athelney

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

There are quite a few places where you can run a freight train at 79 MPH.....railroads cannot get an acceptable rate of return to justify the extra expense in fuel and maintenance on railcars.....Doesn't pay? - Don't do it!

What about the time element -- ie A to B at least 10mph faster say with an intermodal -- doesnt this translate into more dollars if you can get it there quicker! -- especially with so many Asia - Europe land bridge trains .

"Faster" only works if you can wring inventory out of the entire supply chain. An hour or two doesn't usually help much.

If you take UPS traffic as an example. "Faster" only works if you can arrive a "sort" earlier. In most of thier lanes that move by rail, an additional 10 or 20 mph on the max speed (provided you could accomodate it without hammering your overall capacity) wouldn't do this. The UP/CSX train operated for UPS at 75 mph max. was an attempt to do this in one of the lanes where it would work. However, the complexity of getting the train over the road on schedule turned out to be untennable.

Not sure there is really all that much land bridge traffic. Nearly all containers landing in US ports have US destinations.

Think of "faster" in the cumulative vein rather than the single trip idea. 2 hours on one trip means you're two hours earlier for embarking on the return trip, then another 2 hours saved on the return trip, after a week you might have saved 10 or 15 hours in your cycle, after two weeks you might have added another trip or two to your cycle......., in a year you've added 10, 15, maybe 20 extra trips to your annual cycle.

It's all about rail car utilization, the more revenue trips per year the better your bottom line. It's all about better labor utilization, the more miles a crew can cover within the hours of service, the better your labor productivity.

If it has to go at a snail's pace, put it in a barge or a pipeline. Railroad technology is intended to move bulk commodities at speed, otherwise it's a waste of national capital.

In a homogenous world, you'd be correct. But intermodal traffic is all about production schedules and corresponding gate cut-offs.

With carload traffic, the cycle time game is won and lost first in the "last mile" part of the trip, second, in the number and duration of intermediate handlings. A distant third is train speed.

[spbed]

Where does your 59MPH statement come from as last month I paced a BNSF train east of Daggett & my car said speed was at 70MPH & I was keeping perfect pace with the train which meant he was also doing 70? [:p]

Originally posted by trainfinder22

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

• Reply