tdmidget carnej1 tdmidget You guys who actually believed that this thing would carry freight must be a real hoot on April 1st. To help you out here 's a clue: no doors to load it should jump out at you. It can not pay for itself and was never intended to. It is strictly a PR program. After all it goes BEHIND the locomotives. After pushing a brick shaped locomotive through the air there is not a lot than can be done to mitigate that. So it does nothing but reduce the count of revenue containers and become a bother when not entrained. But the public will see it and be overjoyed that UP is saving the earth. Mitigating the drag of a brick shaped locomotive? Like this, you mean?:https://www.google.com/patents/US20100326316?dq=michael+iden+union+pacific&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mlgvUq3oBZHG4APKhoD4Dw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwATgK FIRE AWAY!!! To mitigate the drag of locomotives? It's been done. E and F units. Much easier and, I'll bet, cheaper.
carnej1 tdmidget You guys who actually believed that this thing would carry freight must be a real hoot on April 1st. To help you out here 's a clue: no doors to load it should jump out at you. It can not pay for itself and was never intended to. It is strictly a PR program. After all it goes BEHIND the locomotives. After pushing a brick shaped locomotive through the air there is not a lot than can be done to mitigate that. So it does nothing but reduce the count of revenue containers and become a bother when not entrained. But the public will see it and be overjoyed that UP is saving the earth. Mitigating the drag of a brick shaped locomotive? Like this, you mean?:https://www.google.com/patents/US20100326316?dq=michael+iden+union+pacific&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mlgvUq3oBZHG4APKhoD4Dw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwATgK FIRE AWAY!!!
tdmidget You guys who actually believed that this thing would carry freight must be a real hoot on April 1st. To help you out here 's a clue: no doors to load it should jump out at you. It can not pay for itself and was never intended to. It is strictly a PR program. After all it goes BEHIND the locomotives. After pushing a brick shaped locomotive through the air there is not a lot than can be done to mitigate that. So it does nothing but reduce the count of revenue containers and become a bother when not entrained. But the public will see it and be overjoyed that UP is saving the earth.
You guys who actually believed that this thing would carry freight must be a real hoot on April 1st. To help you out here 's a clue: no doors to load it should jump out at you.
It can not pay for itself and was never intended to. It is strictly a PR program. After all it goes BEHIND the locomotives. After pushing a brick shaped locomotive through the air there is not a lot than can be done to mitigate that. So it does nothing but reduce the count of revenue containers and become a bother when not entrained. But the public will see it and be overjoyed that UP is saving the earth.
Mitigating the drag of a brick shaped locomotive?
Like this, you mean?:https://www.google.com/patents/US20100326316?dq=michael+iden+union+pacific&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mlgvUq3oBZHG4APKhoD4Dw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwATgK
FIRE AWAY!!!
To mitigate the drag of locomotives? It's been done. E and F units. Much easier and, I'll bet, cheaper.
If what you are trying to say is that it would be cheaper for BNSF to order new locomotives with better Streamlining (I assume you mean cowled units like the F45 rather than actual "covered wagons") no way. Ge and Cat/Progress/EMD would charge a mint for the extra engineering....
Whether or not fuel prices get to the point where cowls make economic sense remains to be seen..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
What if they have to add another railcar to make up for the lost container space?
With their statement: "We are excited to see the results of this innovation in action and how it can springboard further research and development.", it looks like they have no idea how it will do physically but know the exact amount of green PR if will create.
tdmidgetSo it does nothing but reduce the count of revenue containers and become a bother when not entrained. But the public will see it and be overjoyed that UP is saving the earth.
There you go, right on! I tried to say that and was accused of being a hammer.
I just can't see this design working, on "High Cube " loads, or frieght truck loads. Shippers want maximine cubes, and will fill a box to the limit, High Cube loads such as bottles, cans,beer, just won't work. Plate glass, might, but the shape of the trailer,will hinder a lot of loadings
Bucyrus The only difference I see between truck fairing and this train fairing is a matter of proportion . A double stack train has air resistance all over it. It is in front of the engines, between them, in front of all of the stacks, under the cars, in front of the cars, and between the trucks and wheels. If you could shrink wrap the whole thing and turn it into a big smooth worm, there were be tremedous fuel savings. But just one fairing in one small spot seems like a drop in the bucket.
The only difference I see between truck fairing and this train fairing is a matter of proportion . A double stack train has air resistance all over it. It is in front of the engines, between them, in front of all of the stacks, under the cars, in front of the cars, and between the trucks and wheels. If you could shrink wrap the whole thing and turn it into a big smooth worm, there were be tremedous fuel savings. But just one fairing in one small spot seems like a drop in the bucket.
I agree.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I wonder if the locomotive doesn't deflect enough air over the top so as not to effect the face of the train.
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.
Murphy Siding If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you only have one ideological bent, everything posted to this forum looks like an opportunity to define things in that ideological bent, I thought I had seen where trucking companies were experimenting with using some kind of a flair on the back of the cab, to push the air out on the sides, and reduce turbulence on the leading edge of the trailer, in order to reduce drag.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you only have one ideological bent, everything posted to this forum looks like an opportunity to define things in that ideological bent, I thought I had seen where trucking companies were experimenting with using some kind of a flair on the back of the cab, to push the air out on the sides, and reduce turbulence on the leading edge of the trailer, in order to reduce drag.
I commonly see aerodynamic fairings on top of long haul truck cabs so I gather that the technology is not just an experiment. Also common are big drag reducing "flaps" under both sides of semi- trailers.
The Arrowedge seems to be a similar application although whether it's as practical remains to be seen.
beaulieuHow much trouble would it be to just lift it off the train with the standard container crane and set it on a standard chassis and park it somewhere until needed. Then have another tractor bring it to a crane loading an outbound train?
Were those fuel costs factored in?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I would think that someone else has seen the information that the device was tested at TTCI in 1:1 scale and that testing refined and confirmed the calculated savings. How much trouble would it be to just lift it off the train with the standard container crane and set it on a standard chassis and park it somewhere until needed. Then have another tractor bring it to a crane loading an outbound train? Yes the flow of yard tractors bringing containers might cause the ArroEdge to be facing the wrong direction, but you just have it wait till the last container is loaded and then it can proceed under the crane from the opposite direction. Also many of the newest cranes are equipped with rotating spreaders so that the orientation of the containers can be changed.
It has nothing to do with ideology. Where did you get that idea? Green is what it is. It is a real trend with a clear purpose. Read the tags on the article about the inventor. It is a who's who of the green movement. There is a ton of green marketing out there.
I would guess that putting a streamline fairng on trucks is a viable way to save more fuel cost than the cost of the device. For one thing, the device is MUCH larger in relation to a truck than one little faring on the first container of a 100 car freight train. That would be like putting a thimble on the front of a highway truck.
I think the U.P. faring will save fuel which will help the planet. Maybe some of the engineering people on this forum can tell us how many pints per mile, the fairing will save on a given train.
Actually my comment above is not much different than the newswire piece in the original post. It sound skeptical of the practicality of the idea and says the objective is this:
"The Arrowedge represents Union Pacific's focus on pioneering technology for operational and environmentally sustainable gains that ultimately result in enhanced customer service and community stewardship,.."
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Bucyrus I don’t think they believe that it has to be cost effective. There are two kinds of energy efficiency; the economic objective and the “green” objective. It is possible to have a combination of the two, but the green objective alone is unencumbered by the need to be cost effective in the normal economic market. In reading the link about the inventor, it becomes obvious that this is a case of marketing “green.” The green objective does not require cost effectiveness. In other words, the green objective can be met by a means of energy use reduction that costs more than the energy saved. This is because the objective of green is to reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet, as opposed to saving money. From a marketing standpoint, the idea is sold on the premise that everybody needs to do their part for a greater good. Doing your part comes at a cost. And since the objective cannot be measured, it is free to become more of a feeling or style as opposed to a hardcore engineering benefit. It is free to be whimsical and mostly symbolic because it is the idea that counts. So it spawns inventions such as putting a propeller beanie on your head to generate electricity while riding a bicycle.
I don’t think they believe that it has to be cost effective.
There are two kinds of energy efficiency; the economic objective and the “green” objective. It is possible to have a combination of the two, but the green objective alone is unencumbered by the need to be cost effective in the normal economic market.
In reading the link about the inventor, it becomes obvious that this is a case of marketing “green.”
The green objective does not require cost effectiveness. In other words, the green objective can be met by a means of energy use reduction that costs more than the energy saved. This is because the objective of green is to reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet, as opposed to saving money.
From a marketing standpoint, the idea is sold on the premise that everybody needs to do their part for a greater good. Doing your part comes at a cost. And since the objective cannot be measured, it is free to become more of a feeling or style as opposed to a hardcore engineering benefit. It is free to be whimsical and mostly symbolic because it is the idea that counts. So it spawns inventions such as putting a propeller beanie on your head to generate electricity while riding a bicycle.
So essentially you believe that Union Pacific has hired a Director level officer for the sole purpose of pandering to the Green movement (I doubt the Green's would be thrilled with other work Mr. Iden has done; such optimizing U.P's Distributed Power Unit operations which has improved, among other things, Unit Coal train operations)?
I guess they'll be out of business in a few months.....
It might be something if it actually did do that but I have major doubts....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
From the link on the inventor:
"The UP hasn’t decided yet whether to deploy the wedge, but it’s looking good. The company has to estimate whether the costs of building and deploying wedges will be more than offset by the fuel savings, now and in the future. It’s possible that the company would decide to license the idea to other railroads, too."
I have a hard time believing that it will be possible for the fuel savings to offset the cost of building and deploying the wedge. I don’t think that is the objective.
How about this clever loading of containers which reduced the gaps significantly, at least on the upper level. Of course it requires an exact mix of container lengths (53-45-53) and this version of the well car so it is not realistic for day to day operation. On the other hand, I can't see any "gap filler" device meeting the twin challenges of simple, quick installation/removal, yet robust enough to withstand the side blasts of strong crosswinds or passing trains.
Caution - don't try to replicate this on your model railroad unless you have unusually large minimum radii!
John
The gap fillers are shown in the patent illustrations in the link in the top post of this page. If you click on one of those line drawings, it blows up and you can then scroll through them with the arrows at the sides.
I've seen no mention of "gap-fillers" elsewhere on the train, and the only thing the U.P. has ordered so far is eight (8) copies of the ArroWedge topper itself.
An article about the genesis of the idea and the man behind it:
http://www.marcgunther.com/the-power-of-one-union-pacific/
Bucyrus This concept needs a clear explanation. From the patent, it looks as though it includes more than just a fairing for the lead container. It suggests that the gaps between all stacks of containers will have some type filler or fairing for the leading face of the containters. Or maybe, these are just variation on one fairing for the lead, upper container. What I want to see is U.P. publishing engineering figures indicating the amount of drag reduction the fairing supplies to a train. The patent simply speaks of "drag reduction." Certainly the concept will provide drag reduction. The pertinent question is: how much reduction? Just keeping the train clean will provide drag reduction as well as weight reduction, but is it worth it? I want to see how many gallons of fuel U.P. will save with this device. Surely they have made that calculation. Why not tell us what it says?
This concept needs a clear explanation. From the patent, it looks as though it includes more than just a fairing for the lead container. It suggests that the gaps between all stacks of containers will have some type filler or fairing for the leading face of the containters. Or maybe, these are just variation on one fairing for the lead, upper container.
What I want to see is U.P. publishing engineering figures indicating the amount of drag reduction the fairing supplies to a train.
The patent simply speaks of "drag reduction." Certainly the concept will provide drag reduction. The pertinent question is: how much reduction? Just keeping the train clean will provide drag reduction as well as weight reduction, but is it worth it?
I want to see how many gallons of fuel U.P. will save with this device. Surely they have made that calculation. Why not tell us what it says?
"Why Not Tell us what it says?"
The patent is proprietary to UP and at the moment they are the only railroad that can legally use this device so I don't think you will see them share all their data with the rest of the industry right now.
They seem to be very early in the testing process for this technology, there's a long way to go until we'll see if this is something that will be adopted by UP or anyone else in the industry.....
If you want to see the most efficient aerodynamic shape, release a drop of water and photograph it in free fall. The liquid will assume the shape that is the least drag.
The best way to apply that to a train is to divide that shape in half and attach one end of it to each end of the well car.
That said, most of the aerodynamic drag comes from the gaps between the cars.
mudchicken The UP project reminds me of the old Triumph TR7 "Shape of things to come" ad campaign of the 1970-80'shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk1QaAH-r_o
The UP project reminds me of the old Triumph TR7 "Shape of things to come" ad campaign of the 1970-80'shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk1QaAH-r_o
I own a 79 TR-7 convertable - still looks contemporary today.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Twenty years ago, I did a simulation analysis of several double-stack car designs for a Class I railroad. There are multiple sources of train resistance, including rolling and bearing, train weight itself, and aerodynamic. Aerodynamic drag depends on the length of containers in the wells, whether there are empty wells or single containers (both of which produce a lot more drag), and --- which way the wind is blowing.
All told, drag was a small enough factor that I ignored it, since we couldn't predict the loading pattern on a particular train.
All that having been said, the extra handling involved in fitting the "arrowedge" (and any "gap fillers") will likely exceed the fuel savings. This one looks like little more than a publicity stunt.
Interesting, that nobody, not even UP, remembered to put the second capital letter in the trademarked name:ArroWedge. A more accurate description of the device.
No loads are planned for transport in this thing. It appears to be just a hollow wedge. One doesn't have to be worried about a lack of weight, because it will be attached to the container below it with inter-box connectors.The Joliet-California debut of this could have a significance...this would be the route for ocean-going containers, which are usually no more than 40 feet long. And many stack cars have been produced recently (yea, and even shortened from 48 feet) to provide 40-foot tubs, precisely to reduce the drag. I would think that a 48-foot device like the ArroWedge could fit in the upper-front position and be close to, but not interfere with, the top container of the following tub (a four-foot overhang). The IBC connection posts provide for this.I didn't look into the patent to see what or whether something is planned for other gaps on the train. It's doable--a thick tarp, with hooks to go into the IBC posts, would lessen drag. The question would be whether it's worth the hassle that would be necessary to handle it at the end-points. Just think...they could put a catchy slogan on the side of these tarps: "Resistance is Futile" (kind of appropriate for the Borg, no?).
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
The patent illustrations show some filler fairing devices fitted into the gaps between the stacks. It appears that they are not permenatly attached to the cars or the containers, but rather, are attached by hang hooks to the ends of the containers.
I suppose track curves would affect the shape of the gaps, so filling the entire gap between stacks with a solid filler structure would not be possible. The gaps would have to be filled with a giant sponge with a smooth skin on it. But then those sponges would have to be attached securely so they don't blow off in the wind.
I think a lot of benefit would flow from streamlining the whole train as if it were a big worm with no gaps and flat faces running into air. But that seems like a mighty big engineering challenge. If gap fillers were added to the train, it would take a lot of time and labor to attach all those pieces to the containers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.