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

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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".

[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...

[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.

[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?

[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.

[ericsp]

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

[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]

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.

[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...

[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.

[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 .

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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 .

[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!

[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.

[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.