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.
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/
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.
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.
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.....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
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.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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,.."
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I agree.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.