Canada has banned 1 man crews for trains hauling HazMat - this rule does not apply to general (non Hazardous) freight. It is possible that the FRA may do the same.
NorthWest Another point about one man crews... will the FRA allow it? After the Quebec derailment, I don't see them permitting it.
Another point about one man crews... will the FRA allow it? After the Quebec derailment, I don't see them permitting it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC there is no FRA regulation mandating two man crews and there are some regional RR's in the US that have one man operation of some road trains (the former Wisconsin Central did this for some trains, I believe).
The Big Class 1's all have labor agreements which include crew size provisions....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
greyhounds oltmannd greyhoundsOr, my favorite, a "feeder/distributor" service can connect a smaller volume terminal with a large terminal. That's sort of how NS works it east of Harrisburg with Phila and Baltimore. The question is do you do load centering a the consolidation point or just block swaps? You have to be mindful of the number of destinations you'll serve from those origins. It would depend on the volume. A few loads would be load centered, if you've got enough loads to/from a destination/origin to make a good block, then do block swapping. I just threw out Mobile as a possible market for such a service. I don't know if a feeder/distributor service would work there or not. Such services will work in some places, but I don't really know about Mobile. Container transfer systems (machines) and terminals need not be costly. They are currently made that way to fit into the operations of high volume situations that require rapid handling of many containers. It's entirely possible to go between road and double stack using a low cost system - which would be ideal for the smaller terminals we are discussing. In Frailey's latest blog there's a picture of a new Indiana Rail Road intermodal train leaving Indianapolis on its first run. The Indiana operates, and has for years, with one person crews. I'll wager $20 against a doughnut that this new IM service is operated with one person crews. It can be done safely. You just need to get past resistance to change.
oltmannd greyhoundsOr, my favorite, a "feeder/distributor" service can connect a smaller volume terminal with a large terminal. That's sort of how NS works it east of Harrisburg with Phila and Baltimore. The question is do you do load centering a the consolidation point or just block swaps? You have to be mindful of the number of destinations you'll serve from those origins.
greyhoundsOr, my favorite, a "feeder/distributor" service can connect a smaller volume terminal with a large terminal.
That's sort of how NS works it east of Harrisburg with Phila and Baltimore. The question is do you do load centering a the consolidation point or just block swaps? You have to be mindful of the number of destinations you'll serve from those origins.
It would depend on the volume. A few loads would be load centered, if you've got enough loads to/from a destination/origin to make a good block, then do block swapping.
I just threw out Mobile as a possible market for such a service. I don't know if a feeder/distributor service would work there or not. Such services will work in some places, but I don't really know about Mobile.
Container transfer systems (machines) and terminals need not be costly. They are currently made that way to fit into the operations of high volume situations that require rapid handling of many containers.
It's entirely possible to go between road and double stack using a low cost system - which would be ideal for the smaller terminals we are discussing.
In Frailey's latest blog there's a picture of a new Indiana Rail Road intermodal train leaving Indianapolis on its first run. The Indiana operates, and has for years, with one person crews. I'll wager $20 against a doughnut that this new IM service is operated with one person crews. It can be done safely. You just need to get past resistance to change.
Seems the bottom line is "know what you are doing and get after it!"
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
CSSHEGEWISCHOne-person crews may be unrealistic. Re-negotating the existing labor contracts to allow such an operation may be more difficult than it is worth and it would probably be a public relations nightmare once the public at large heard of such an operation.
What would be the traffic source/sink? Mobile's wanna-be port? The general population? Where's that stuff come from and/or want to go to?
greyhounds And, dare I say it, I'd go for a one person crew on the Mobile-Birmingham container train. Got to keep those marginal cost as low as possible.
And, dare I say it, I'd go for a one person crew on the Mobile-Birmingham container train. Got to keep those marginal cost as low as possible.
One-person crews may be unrealistic. Re-negotating the existing labor contracts to allow such an operation may be more difficult than it is worth and it would probably be a public relations nightmare once the public at large heard of such an operation.
WilliamKiesel One Roadrailer container chassis prototype was built by the Robert Reebie's BiModal Corporation in 1980 or 1979. The application of Roadrailer container chassis would tap the advantages of the Roadrailer: Linehaul Speed, Terminal simplicity. So, for the Crescent Corridor, Roadrailer chassis could also be applied to complement and supplement double stacks as the market might need. I would think that the faster speed potential for a Roadrailer container chassis operation might be applied to expand Triple Crown and increase revenue in ways not practical for double stack operations. As for balanced operations with loads, the chassis can be balanced by carrying, lets say 3 other empty chassis to terminals for loads. InTriple Crown Roadrailer linehaul.
One Roadrailer container chassis prototype was built by the Robert Reebie's BiModal Corporation in 1980 or 1979. The application of Roadrailer container chassis would tap the advantages of the Roadrailer: Linehaul Speed, Terminal simplicity.
So, for the Crescent Corridor, Roadrailer chassis could also be applied to complement and supplement double stacks as the market might need. I would think that the faster speed potential for a Roadrailer container chassis operation might be applied to expand Triple Crown and increase revenue in ways not practical for double stack operations.
As for balanced operations with loads, the chassis can be balanced by carrying, lets say 3 other empty chassis to terminals for loads. InTriple Crown Roadrailer linehaul.
Roadrailer trains on NS don't really move any faster than regular intermodal trains - 60 mph max, same avg speed on route. They are more fuel efficient, though.
greyhoundsI do not agree that double stack terminals have to be large and expensive. Some of them are being built that way, but they don't have to be built that way. A small, inexpensive, stack terminal can put traffic on the cost efficient large stack trans if the railroad is able to do a set out/pick up efficiently without destroying the through schedule. Or, my favorite, a "feeder/distributor" service can connect a smaller volume terminal with a large terminal.
You still need a mighty expensive piece of equipment to load the boxes...and presumably some heavy-duty pavement to support it. You can start a RR terminal with some grading and crushed stone.
Israel Railways does not yet have double-stack, and clearences would have to be improved in certain areas to have it/ But they do a lot of container on flatcar. And they have mobile rubber-tired movers with a cab, self-propelled, that can drive sideways on the highways from one siding to another. Refrigorated containers are used to ship fruit and vegetables to Europe, via the Ashdod and Haifa ports. The farms, vnyards, and orchards that grow the products are in different locations, with different harvesting times. So the movers (vertical cranes) go to where the product is for the particular harvest season.
It seems to me that this idea could be adapted to double-stack cranes, with the legs telescoping up for use and down for movement. This could allow a single crane to serve several loading and unloading points.
The containers to get a back-haul on the ships to Israel, imported furniture, marble finishes, wood veneers, even railroad maintenance items. And againi unloading the flatcars may be at very different locations than where the vegitables and fruits are loaded.
I think the only fixed cranes for movement of the containers are at the ports themselves. And they are huge.
oltmannd DS requires big expensive terminals - so lots of volume in the lane is key. But, drayage is the enemy, so that runs counter to the "big terminal" requirment. Lots of small ones would be better. But big terminals can support very productive large trains. With RR, you can have very cheap terminals, so they'd win the drayage war. But 140<<280, so they lose the train productivity war. Then their is the whole issue of box utilization. RR boxes are more expensive than a container, so it's even more imperative to keep'em full. Hard to do if you have limited service lanes. Had APL not pushed stacks, I wonder if could have wound up in RR-land rather than stack-land?
DS requires big expensive terminals - so lots of volume in the lane is key. But, drayage is the enemy, so that runs counter to the "big terminal" requirment. Lots of small ones would be better. But big terminals can support very productive large trains.
With RR, you can have very cheap terminals, so they'd win the drayage war. But 140<<280, so they lose the train productivity war.
Then their is the whole issue of box utilization. RR boxes are more expensive than a container, so it's even more imperative to keep'em full. Hard to do if you have limited service lanes.
Had APL not pushed stacks, I wonder if could have wound up in RR-land rather than stack-land?
Good points and a good question.
It certainly didn't hurt double stack that it had a "Product Champion" pushing the concept. And don't forget that APL literally bought a base of traffic when it purchased National Piggyback Services. Intermodal marketing companies were much more important back then and National Pig was the largest in the business. APL got westbound backhaul loads for its import containers with the NPS purchase.
But I think double stack would have eventually defeated RoadRailers anyway. The initial railroad to use double stack was the Southern Pacific. And the SP, like the NS today, was a single track railroad. That means they had to get the most out of each train. They were very limited in the number of trains that could be efficiently run over the single track.
Double stack allows much greater train loads. Since most of the North American rail net is single track, and there are some capacity problems, double stack provides a more cost effective answer than smaller RoadRailer trains.
I do not agree that double stack terminals have to be large and expensive. Some of them are being built that way, but they don't have to be built that way. A small, inexpensive, stack terminal can put traffic on the cost efficient large stack trans if the railroad is able to do a set out/pick up efficiently without destroying the through schedule. Or, my favorite, a "feeder/distributor" service can connect a smaller volume terminal with a large terminal.
I'll throw out Mobile, AL on the NS as an example. (I'll first state that I have no idea how much freight is available to/from Mobile. I'm just using it as an example.) Put a low cost container terminal in Mobile. Run a daily turn to Birmingham. At Birmingham add the Mobile freight to the existing high volume stack trains. It puts freight revenue on the railroad, fills out trains, and extends most (but not all) of the economics of double stack to the Mobile market. It will keep the drayage costs down. But it needs to be a low cost terminal in Mobile. And, dare I say it, I'd go for a one person crew on the Mobile-Birmingham container train. Got to keep those marginal cost as low as possible.
There WAS a Crescent Corridor Roadrailer train for quite a while. Conrail's RR265 and RR266 (265 and 266 on NS) ran Allentown/Portside to Atlanta for about 15 years. The trains died when the main shipper quit - I believe it was Chrysler's Newark DE plant.
The reason NS still has roadrailers is balanced marketing. They do not expand into a new market until they have loads at both ends of a route. Triple Crown is very careful to minimize the number of empty miles, so most roadrailers are loads. That is why NS/Triple Crown have been sucessful when other railroads haven't.
Until the Cresent Corridor is "balanced" ie same number of loads in both directions, Roadrailers are not a viable option. McClellans triangle routing might work, if implemented properly, as Triple Crown is a trucking company, not a rail company. But even that most likely will require truckers to deadhead empty after each load.
Roadrailers travel down the track just fine, thank you. NS has been running them up and down the "rathole" South of Cincy almost from the beginning. Amtrak was able to run them facing front or back at 79mph when they were in using them for thier parcel service.
BaltACD Can Roadrailers be stacked? To my knowledge - NO. Intermodal has become a operation of moving maximum commodity (boxes) with minimum train length. A 9000 foot double stack train can handle 280 boxes (containers) - single stacked it can only handle 140 (and a I am not referencing 20 foot containers in my calculations) . A Roadrailer, handling 140 53 foot trailers would be at least 7420 feet long (and probably several hundred feet longer once couplings are taken into account). The structural integrety of Roadrailers does not mesh well with all the other aspects of existing railroad operations. To my knowledge, a Roadrailer train connot be shoved - should that necessity arise acount of engine failure (engines do fail - even when they are being used in premium service). I also don't know the ability of Roadrailers to operate in mountainous territory with a high degree of curvature in addition to the grades - both ascending and decending.
Can Roadrailers be stacked? To my knowledge - NO.
Intermodal has become a operation of moving maximum commodity (boxes) with minimum train length. A 9000 foot double stack train can handle 280 boxes (containers) - single stacked it can only handle 140 (and a I am not referencing 20 foot containers in my calculations) . A Roadrailer, handling 140 53 foot trailers would be at least 7420 feet long (and probably several hundred feet longer once couplings are taken into account).
The structural integrety of Roadrailers does not mesh well with all the other aspects of existing railroad operations. To my knowledge, a Roadrailer train connot be shoved - should that necessity arise acount of engine failure (engines do fail - even when they are being used in premium service). I also don't know the ability of Roadrailers to operate in mountainous territory with a high degree of curvature in addition to the grades - both ascending and decending.
Well, you certainly cannot double stack RoadRailers. But their structural integrity is fine.
You can shove them. RoadRailer trains can, and do, back up. They take mountain curves just fine. Both UP and BNSF operated a regular RoadRailer train for Swift Transportation (a trucker) between Seattle and LA. The trains went over the Tehachapi Loop just fine. BNSF also operated its refrigerated RoadRailer "Ice Cold Express" over Raton Pass on a regular basis without problems.
Set outs of bad orders are not a problem. The RoadRailer landing gear is designed to lower on to the rails. So you just crank down the landing gear on the railer behind the set out equipment, uncouple, then put the bad order on a siding and lower its landing gear. Then recouple to the train and raise the landing get on the railer still in the train.
There is a big problem if you have to pull the rear end of the train back. There are no wheels under the front railer. So you've got quite an issue there.
The equipment works fine. It's just that no one in the world besides Triple Crown has ever come up with an effective way to use it in revenue service. And it seems NS is loosing interest in Triple Crown. Just what benefits does NS get from operating two different intermodal systems?
There is also the question of where to invest capital. Presumably NS's marketing are keeping their present Triple Crown equipment busy earning money on routes that are particularly suitable. They probably could find markets in the Crescent Corridor, but this would require investing in additional equipment, and the capital funds probably are better invested in business more profitable.
That photo is showing the original wheel placement using the spread axle on the frame and carrying the rail wheel set. Trailers set up like the one on the left are now used
Hello,
cx500If a bearing fails en-route, I wonder how easy it is to set out a trailer, or if the whole train gets held waiting for additional resources to deal with the problem. Does anybody on the forum know?
I found this...http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=252829&nseq=4,
NW
Don't forget that RoadRailer is pretty complex too. The trailers must be specially designed to handle the drawbar forces of the locomotive(s) hauling a string of say 60 trailers. They also need to have a set of railroad wheels for each trailer, plus appropriate braking equipment. That all adds weight which reduces potential payload if they are to stay legal on the road component of the trip. While of course RoadRailer will not require gantry cranes or toplifters, it still requires terminals and shunt trucks to actually assemble the trailers into a train, and take apart at the destination. And simple containers are much cheaper to own than specially modified trailers.
RoadRailers may continue to operate in certain niche corridors where they can make sense, but overall the container has been found to be the more practical solution for general transportation needs.
If a bearing fails en-route, I wonder how easy it is to set out a trailer, or if the whole train gets held waiting for additional resources to deal with the problem. Does anybody on the forum know?
John
greyhounds The verdict, rendered by the market, seems to be in. Double stack yes. RoadRailer no. There may be some possible applications for RoadRailer type technology. If you've got an idea for such an application, would you please share it with us.
The verdict, rendered by the market, seems to be in. Double stack yes. RoadRailer no. There may be some possible applications for RoadRailer type technology. If you've got an idea for such an application, would you please share it with us.
I don't think the verdict is in yet... take a drive down I81 sometime and count the trucks. This ain't in the bag by any means.
Don't forget that trucking has one huge advantage: it's SIMPLE. A driver picks up his load at point A and then drives to point B, where he delivers. It doesn't get any simpler. The Crescent corridor initiative, on the other hand, is COMPLEX: it involves, shunt trucks, chassis, well cars, containers, gantry cranes, terminals, and at least 10 people verses the trucker's one person to move that load. So what is the draw? We've heard that they want to take trucks off of the highway. But so what. Market forces have put those trucks there. Shippers only care about service level and price. Will the Crescent Corridor improve service levels over truck? I think not. So now all we have left is price. How much cheaper is moving a container this way verses truck? That difference in price and how the market values it will determine the success or failure of the Crescent Corridor, and not some grandiose proclamation about taking trucks off the highway. The people who buy transportation don't care about that. Roadrailer might be a way to shave some cost by getting rid of the cranes and the bottleneck at each end due to loading/unloading. That's important, because price is all they've got to sell with this. If it isn't appreciably cheaper than trucking it isn't going to make a dent in transferring volumes to the rails.
Can Roadrailers be stacked? To my knowledge - NO. Intermodal has become a operation of moving maximum commodity (boxes) with minimum train length. A 9000 foot double stack train can handle 280 boxes (containers) - single stacked it can only handle 140 (and a I am not referencing 20 foot containers in my calculations) . A Roadrailer, handling 140 53 foot trailers would be at least 7420 feet long (and probably several hundred feet longer once couplings are taken into account). The structural integrety of Roadrailers does not mesh well with all the other aspects of existing railroad operations. To my knowledge, a Roadrailer train connot be shoved - should that necessity arise acount of engine failure (engines do fail - even when they are being used in premium service). I also don't know the ability of Roadrailers to operate in mountainous territory with a high degree of curvature in addition to the grades - both ascending and decending.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Ulrich Roadrailer doesn't require chassis to pickup and drop off containers and expensive terminals with gantry cranes to load/unload trains. I'm sure NS would have looked at Roadrailer, but why was it rejected in favor of double stack? On the face of it Roadrailer looks more efficient than double stack for domestic moves of moderate distance.
Roadrailer doesn't require chassis to pickup and drop off containers and expensive terminals with gantry cranes to load/unload trains. I'm sure NS would have looked at Roadrailer, but why was it rejected in favor of double stack? On the face of it Roadrailer looks more efficient than double stack for domestic moves of moderate distance.
What is a "Moderate Distance"?
Is there a specific application you can suggest where RoadRailers would be more economical that double stack? The NS has to put IM terminals in places such as Birmingham, AL. No one has ever come up with a way to effectively move ISO sea containers using RoadRailers. So NS would have to either forego the international business or put in container cranes.
If they've got the crane equipped terminal they might as well use it. It makes no sense to run RoadRailers through a terminal equipped with cranes for container handling.
The technology and the terrain are two things that come into it...but also market. Is there a pair or pairs of market, i.e. industries or industrial groups and far ends of a corridor or pairing(s) that would use and support the service?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
It might be fun to inject the RailRunner technology into the discussion at some point -- that is intended as a spine container underframe rather than a van trailer. We've had a couple of threads over the years that discuss the logistics fairly well. But it might be valuable to go over the topic again...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.